The failure to meet the statutory requirements for proving a Will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act leads to its invalidity, resulting in intestate succession applying instead.

JUDGMENT :

R.N.MANJULA, J.

This Testamentary Original Suit has been filed seeking Letters of Administration with the Will annexed may be granted to the plaintiffs as the beneficiary under the Will of the deceased Mrs.B.Chengalvalli Thayaramma having effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu and whole of Union of India to the properties mentioned in the affidavit of assets.

2. The Original Petition filed by the petitioner has been converted into Testamentary Original Suit in view of the caveat filed by the respondents who have been stated as defendants in the suit. The defendants in the suit are grand daughters of the testatrix.

3. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:

The Will dated 01.05.1971 is the last Will and Testament of late B.Chengalvalli Thayaramma who died on 04.09.1973. The deceased plaintiff was the grand son-in-law of the testatrix and husband of the first respondent in the Original Petition and he was the executor of the Will. As per the Will dated 01.05.1971, the immovable properties mentioned in the Will were being enjoyed by the respective parties. Mrs.Padmavathy was the only daughter of the testatrix B.Chengalvalli Thayaramma. The son of B.Chengalvalli Thayaramma by name B.E.Sampath died on 06.04.1968 without any issues. Mrs.B.Andal Ammal, wife of B.E.Sampath also died on 26.02.1971. So, the entire estate of B.Chengalvalli Thayaramma fell into the hands of the daughter Padmavathy. Mr.Ramachandran, husband of Padmavathy died in the year 1990. In the year 2006, Padmavathy also died. The respondents in the Original Petition are the son and daughters of the deceased Padmavathy.

3.1. Though the Will has been executed on 01.05.1971, it was not probated due to the reason that the Will has been acted upon and the benefits of the Will has also been enjoyed by all the parties concerned. Hence, no necessity arose. All the movable properties like jewellery, shares and bank deposits of the testatrix mentioned in the Will are in the custody of the respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the Original Petition. The executor of the Will and his wife were not aware of the distribution of jewellery and other movables mentioned in the Will. Hence, the Original Petition has been filed to discharge the duties caused by the testatrix in the Will. The immovable properties mentioned in the Will were already been enjoyed by the beneficiaries. The sale has been effected only for the property in Badrain Street to meet the liabilities. Several efforts have been made to probate the Will with the consent of all the members. As the movable properties are in the hands of the respondents 2,3,4 and 5, a Petition has been filed for seeking probate of the Will dated 01.05.1971. Later, the prayer has been amended for seeking Letters of Administration with the Will dated 01.05.1971 in favour of the plaintiffs.

4. The averments made in the written statement of the first and second defendants are in brief:

The testatrix had never executed any Will whatsoever much less the alleged fabricated Will dated 01.05.1971. She never put her thumb impression on any document on 01.05.1971. The testatrix was 82 years old and she was not in a good condition and also not in a sound disposing state of mind. The alleged Will does not bear the date and place of execution and therefore, it is invalid and void. The alleged Will does not contain the signature of the alleged attesting witnesses. The Will has come into effect in respect of the properties enjoyed by the f