The court confirmed the validity of a Will executed in a sound mind, emphasizing the challenger’s burden to prove invalidity, which was not met in this case.

JUDGMENT :

R.N.MANJULA, J.

The Original Petition filed by Tmt. Rekha seeking grant of Probate has been converted into Testamentary Original Suit in view of the Caveat filed by the defendant, viz., S.R.Balaji.

T.O.S. No. 7 of 2018:-

2. The short facts pleaded by the plaintiff are in brief:-

The plaintiff is the only daughter of the Testatrix, viz., R.Selvakumari,who had executed a registered Will dated 17.06.2009 videdocument No. 111 of 2009 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sembium, Chennai. As per the arrangements made in the Will, in respect of item No. 1, the son/defendant has been allotted with the eastern half portion (1350 sq. ft.) and daughter/plaintiff has been allotted with the western half portion (1350 sq. ft.) and in respect of item No. 2, the defendant has been allotted with 975 sq. ft. in the eastern portion and the plaintiff has been allotted with 1170 sq. ft. in the southern portion. However, life interest has been given in respect of the properties involved in the Will for the husband of the Testatrix. The Testatrix died on 16.01.2012 and her husband died on 14.07.2016, leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant alone as their legal heirs. As the Will has come into effect, the original petitioner/plaintiff has filed this Original Petition seeking Probate.

3. The written statement of the defendant in brief:-

The defendant submitted that after the demise of his mother, his father during his life time, settled his 1/3^rd undivided share in the suit schedule properties and one another property situated in Ranipet, in favour of the defendant through a Settlement deed dated 20.01.2014 registered as Document No.848 of 2014. Thereafter, he filed a suit in C.S. No. 766 of 2014 against the plaintiff for partition of the defendant's 2/3 undivided share in the above said properties and the same is pending.

3.1. The plaintiff remained exparte in the above suit without disclosing the alleged Will. The Settlement deed in favour of the defendant is unchallenged. Since the defendant's mother was depressed and mentally unsound, she was not in a position to execute any Will. The fact about the Will has been disclosed after five years from the demise of the defendant's mother. The Plaintiff has approached this Court with an undue delay of five years. The defendant's mother did not have any independent income to purchase the properties. It is the defendant's father who purchased all the properties out of his hard earned money in the name of defendant's mother. So, the alleged Will is not valid and the Testamentary Original Suit should be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed now:-

“1. Whether the Will dated 17.06.2009 has been executed by the testatrix in a sound disposing state of mind?

2. Whether the Will dated 17.06.2009 claimed to have been executed by the testatrix is genuine?

3. Whether the plaintiff in T.O.S. No. 7 of 2018 is entitled to get the Probate?"

C.S. No. 766 of 2014:-

5. The plaint filed by the plaintiff in brief:-

The 2^nd plaintiff is the father of the 1^st plaintiff and the defendant herein. The 2^nd plaintiff's wife R.Selvakumari died intestate on 16.01.2012 leaving behind her husband  and two children as her legal heirs. Item No. 1 of the suit property has been purchased under the Sale deed dated 21.08.1990 and registered as Document No. 3213 of 1990 in the name of R.Selvakumari. Item No.2 has been purchased through the Sale deed dated 24.01.1990 and registered as Document No. 811 of 1990 in the name of R.Selvakumari. Item No. 3 ha