The court emphasized that the validity of a registered Will must be presumed if the opposing party admits its execution, shifting the burden to challenge its validity onto the contesting heirs.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. MANJULA, J.

1. This Testamentary Original Suit has been filed seeking Letters of Administration with the Will annexed to the plaintiff as daughter/beneficiary under the Will of the deceased B.V.Padmanabha Rao having effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.

2. Heard Mr.O.Padmaprakash, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mr.K.Ramanatha Reddy, learned counsel for the defendants and perused the materials available on record.

3. The averments pleaded in the plaint filed by the plaintiff are as follows:

The plaintiff is the daughter of the deceased B.V.Padmanabha Rao. The father of the plaintiff had ordinarily resided at 23/13, Sri Basavaraju Nilayam, Nagarjuna 1st Street, Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. He died on 20.02.2010. He left credit worth of Rs.3,50,000/- at the time of his death in Chennai. The deceased has also written a Will dated 22.02.2008 and through which, the plaintiff is entitled to claim the estates of the deceased. The Will was duly executed on 22.02.2008 and it is a registered Will. As per the Will, she is entitled not only to the estate, but also the right of recovery of any debts payable to the deceased father. The plaintiff undertakes to duly administer the credits of the deceased in accordance with the undertaking given by her. Hence, it is prayed to issue Letters of Administration in favour of the plaintiff.

4. The defendants 1 to 4 are the children born to the deceased B.V.Padmanabha Rao through his first wife. The plaintiff born to the B.V.Padmanabha Rao through his second wife. The fifth defendant born to the B.V.Padmanabha Rao through his third wife.

5. During the pendency of the suit, D1 died and her legal heirs have been impleaded as D6 and D7.

6. The averments made in the written statement filed by the defendants 1 to 5 are as follows The deceased B.V.Padmanabha Rao had married Sarojamma, who is the mother of D1 to D4, in the year 1956. Subsequent to his marriage, he developed an extramarital affair with one Lakshmi and two children viz., Murali and P.Bhavani, the plaintiff herein, were born through her. In the year 1962, B.V.Padmanabha Rao had developed another extramarital affair with one Pramila and the fifth defendant was born through her. In the year 1992, the mother of the fifth defendant died and in the year 1994, the mother of the defendants 1 to 4 also died.

6.1. In the year 2004, the deceased B.V.Padmanabha Rao had entered into a joint development agreement with a builder on 50-50% share basis. Accordingly, out of 12 flats to be constructed, 6 flats will go to B.V.Padmanabha Rao and 6 flats to the builder. The brother of the plaintiff Murali forced B.V.Padmanabha Rao to settle three flats in favour of his family. Accordingly, two flats were jointly owned by Murali and his mother Lakshmi and one flat for the plaintiff herein. In the year 2008, the builder had handed over 4 flats to B.V.Padmanabha Rao and he had fraudulently sold two flats out of the share of the testator without his concern and later agreed to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. In the year 2010, B.V.Padmanabha Rao passed away. During that time, the builder has repaid only Rs.16,50,000/-. At this time, the brother of the plaintiff has been forcibly occupying one flat for himself and his mother and let out