The validity of a will must be proved by clear evidence, including testimony from attesting witnesses; failure to do so, alongside suspicious circumstances, results in dismissal of testamentary claims.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. Manjula, J.

This Testamentary Original Suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 25.03.1987 having effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu to the properties mentioned in the affidavit of assets.

2. The Original Petition filed by the plaintiff has been converted into Testamentary Original Suit on the objection raised and caveat filed by the defendants.

The facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:

3. The suit property belongs to the testatrix Rukmani Bai Ammal, who had executed a will on 25.03.1987 by bequeathing the same in favour of the plaintiff. The deceased Rukmani Bai Ammal and her husband did not have any children of their own. The plaintiff is the brother's son of the testatrix. The plaintiff has already filed Original Suit in this court in the year 1989 along with the original will in SR.No.1222 of 1989 through an Advocate Mr.Amirthalingam. Since the advocate died and whereabouts of his council is also not known, the plaintiff could not trace out the bundle and the original will is not available for him to file this Original Petition. As the petitioner did not have any other option, he had filed a fresh Original Petition seeking Letters of Administration by annexing certified copy of the will.

Written statement filed by the second defendant and adopted by the defendants 3 to 5 in brief:

4. Earlier the plaintiff filed O.P.No.12 of 2003 for issuance of Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 25.03.1987, in which this court has granted Letters of Administration on 16.11.2005. When the first respondent came to know about the same, he had filed an application in A.No.6819 of 2007 in O.P.No.12 of 2003. The main ground he raised to revoke the Letters of Administration is that the plaintiff has suppressed many material facts while filing O.P.No.12 of 2003. During the pendency of the A.No.6819 of 2007, the first defendant passed away on 13.10.2007. Subsequently, the defendants 2 to 5 were added as parties to O.P.No.12 of 2003 as per the order passed in A.No.4754 of 2009 on 01.10.2009.

4.1. The subject property of the will was originally belonging to Duraisamy Naidu. He married one Rajammal, who died issueless. Then he married the testatrix Rukmani Bai Ammal as second wife and she also did not have any issues. Duraisamy Naidu passed away leaving behind the testatrix as his sole heir to succeed his estate. Rukmani Bai Ammal acquired title to the suit property subsequent to the lifetime of her husband. As the property has been descended from her husband, all the legal heirs of her husband will be the interested parties and they ought to have been impleaded as parties.

4.2. The original will has not been produced in the probate proceedings, none of the attesting witnesses have been examined to prove the genuineness of the will. The will has been registered at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The registering authority also was not examined. The testatrix had not sued the beneficiary, her brother's son. All these will create suspicious circumstances in the cause of action of the will. According to Section 15 (2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased, on