The court affirmed the validity of a Will executed under the Indian Succession Act, emphasizing that exclusion from succession does not imply suspicion if justified, and that delays in filing suits can be explained.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.)

1. The instant OSA is filed against the order of granting Probate in TOS.No.28 of 2014 vide order dated 30.10.2017. The appellants herein are the defendants 2, 3 and 5 and the respondent herein is the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the learned Single Judge.

3. The brief facts which give rise to the instant OSA are as follows:-

(a). One Mr.Venugopal Naidu is the absolute owner of the suit property. He had 3 daughters and two sons. The plaintiff V.Dayalan and the 4^th defendant V.Pragasam are his sons. The first defendant V.Thayarammal is his wife, and the defendants 2, 3 and 5 viz., V.Kasthuri, V.Jothi and V.Lakshmi are his daughters. Mr.Venugopal Naidu died on 01.06.2004. According to the plaintiff, his father Mr.Venugopal Naidu executed a Will dated 10.05.1996, and bequeathed “B” and “C” schedule properties of the Will to the plaintiff and the 4^th defendant herein respectively. According to the Will, the plaintiff's mother Thayarammal was given life estate of “B” and “C” schedule properties, which is described as “A” schedule property. It is the further submission of the plaintiff that, since his father has given bridal gifts to the defendants 2, 3 and 5 and that they have been given in marriage to respectable wealthy families, his father did not allot shares to them. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with a suit seeking Probate of a Will dated 10.05.1996.

(b). The first defendant Thayarammal and the 4^th defendant V.Pragasam have given consent affidavit for grant of Probate.

(c). However, the three daughters viz., the defendants 2, 3 and 5 have filed a written statement resisting the plaint averments. According to them, the suit is barred by limitation. It is their further submission that filing of the suit in the year 2013 with the delay of more than 9 years from the date of demise of the testator, would cause suspicion in the conduct of the plaintiff. It is their further submission that their father late.Venugopal Naidu never disputed their share. However, the plaintiff only with an idea to subvert the normal succession, has fabricated the Will and has filed the instant suit. According to these defendants, the alleged Will is forged and fabricated one. They would further submit that the reason assigned in the Will for exclusion of these defendants from succession is artificial and there is no rational in excluding the daughters alone, when the sons are also well off. It is the further submission of these defendants that Venugopal Naidu was under the undue influence, duress and coercion of the plaintiff. Hence, these defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. After considering the above pleadings, the learned Single Judge framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the Will dated 10.05.1996 executed by the deceased, namely B.Venugopal Naidu is true and valid?

2. Whether the suit is liable to dismissed on account of delay and for not explaining the reasons for delay?

3. To what other reliefs the Plaintiff is entitled?

[Extracted as it is]

5. In order to prove the case of the respective parties, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and two attesting witnesses viz., T.Sundararaj and S.Jayapaul were examined as PW2 and PW3. In support of the plaintiff's claim, he marked 3 documents as Exs.P1 to P3. On behalf of the defendants, 3^rd defendant V.Lakshmi was examined as DW1 and no document was marked.

6. The learned Single Judge, after thorough appreciation of evidence and law, has decreed the suit by granting a Probate of Will on the ground that there are no suspicious circumstances, and that the testator was hale and healthy and was in sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. The learned Single Judge has also found that the discrepancy of the first defendant's signature in the consent affidavit is only a clerical mistake. Eventually, concluded that the plaintiff has