The propounder must prove the existence and loss of the original Will to obtain Letters of Administration; reliance on a photocopy alone is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Original Petition has been filed under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act of XXXIX of 1925 for the grant of Letters of Administration. Against this petition a Caveat was filed on 11th day of April 2011 by the Caveator above named. The supporting affidavit was filed on 11th day of April 2011. As per order of Court dated 29.02.2012 in O.P.No.913 of 2010, the Original Petition is directed to be converted into Testamentary Original Suit.

The Original Petition No.913 of 2010 was initially filed seeking grant of Letters of Administration with certified copy of the Will dated 09.07.1995, executed by Dr.C.Bagyalakshmi in favour of the petitioner, one of the legatees under the Will.

2. The son of the testatrix, Dr.C.Bagyalakshmi objected to the grant of Letters of Administration and filed a Caveat, in pursuance of which, the Original Petition was converted into the above Testamentary Original Suit.

3. The brief necessary facts culled out from the petition/plaint are as hereunder:

The deceased, Dr.C.Bagyalakshmi executed her last Will and testament on 09.07.1995. The said Dr.C.Bagyalakshmi died on 06.09.1995 and the Will was executed by her in a sound disposing state of mind and it was duly attested by two witnesses, namely Mr.A.Sriram and Mr.P.Murali.

Hence, the grant was prayed for.

4. The necessary facts culled out from the written statement are as hereunder:

The 1st defendant denies the execution of the Will dated 09.07.1995 and contends that the Will produced by the plaintiff is a forged instrument and it was never executed by his mother. The 1st defendant had filed O.S.No.7861 of 1996 before the City Civil Court at Chennai, for safeguarding his interest in the properties which are subject matter of the Will. Only in the said suit, the father of the plaintiff had alleged that the 1st defendant's mother had executed the subject Will, bequeathing the properties in favour of her sister, J.Girija and her children. The said suit was also decreed after contest on 31.03.2002 and the same became final. The 1st defendant is the absolute owner of half share in the properties which are subject matter of the Will. In so far as the other immovable properties inherited by his mother, through her husband and movables mentioned in the Will being the absolute properties of his mother, as the only surviving legal heir of the deceased, Dr.C.Bagyalakshmi, the 1st defendant has inherited the same and consequently, became the absolute owner. It is also contended by the 1st defendant that even during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff, the alleged Will having been propounded, no steps have been taken to obtain grant of Probate or Letters of Administration during his lifetime and until his death on 22.01.2007. The delay of 17 years renders the suit barred by limitation and the suit is hit by the provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963. The mother of the 1st defendant, namely the testatrix was always very affectionate towards the 1st defendant and there is no reason to disinherit the defendant. The Will was not duly executed or attested as required under law and on these grounds, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition.

5. The plaintiff filed a reply statement meeting the allegations made in the written statement and reiterating that the Will had been duly executed and attested as mandated under the statutory provisions envisaged both under the Indian Succession Act as well as the Indian Evidence Act. It is also contended by the plaintiff that the grant sought for is within time and not barred by limitation. The claim in the written statement that the mother was very affectionate towards her son, the 1st defendant is also totally denied and it is contended that the mother was not in cordial terms and the plaintiff was personally aware of the 1st defendant physically assaulting his mother on two occasions. The plaintiff therefore prayed for the suit being decreed as prayed for.

6. On 14.06.2013,