JUDGMENT

This suit is filed to grant of letters of administration with Will annexed having effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu in favour of the plaintiff.

2.The case of the plaintiff is that the deceased V.R.Govindraj was a bachelor and he adopted the plaintiff as his son. He executed his last will and testament on 04.04.1997, in the presence of witnesses at Chennai. Later he died on 22.12.1998. Plaintiff had performed all the funeral functions and Kariyam to the deceased. Plaintiff is the beneficiary under the Will, the adopted son of deceased V.R.Govindraj. Deceased V.R.Govindraj purchased the property with his own money and executed the Will in respect of the property in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, this suit is filed for the aforesaid relief.

3.The case of the first defendant is that the claim of the plaintiff that he is adopted son of deceased V.R.Govindraj is not true. Deceased V.R.Govindraj is the paternal uncle of the first defendant. The claim of the plaintiff that deceased V.R.Govindraj had executed the Will in favour of the plaintiff is not true and it is imaginary claim and self made story in order to deprive the defendants from securing their legitimate right in the properties left by their paternal uncle V.R.Govindraj. Plaintiff was in occupation of the premises of deceased V.R.Govindraj as a tenant. Taking advantage of this fact, this Will was created. The signature found in the Will is not the signature of the deceased V.R.Govindraj. Deceased V.R.Govindraj had close attachment with his brother's family, namely defendant's family. There is absolutely no reason for the deceased V.R.Govindraj to execute the Will in favour of plaintiff. Thus, this suit has to be dismissed with exemplary costs of defendants. Written statement of the first defendant is adopted by the second defendant. 4.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:-

i)Whether the Will dated 04.04.1997 was executed by the testator V.R.Govindraj in a sound and disposing state of mind in the presence of two or more attesting witnesses and is it a valid and genuine document?

ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the grant of letters of administration as prayed for?

iii)To what relief, if any the plaintiff is entitled to?

5.P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined on the side of the plaintiffs and D.W.1 was examined on the side of the defendants. Exhibits P1 and P2 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs and Exhibits D1 to D24 were marked on the side of the defendants.

6.Issue Nos.1 – 3:-

The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff was adopted by the deceased V.R.Govindraj and was taking care of all the requirements of the deceased V.R.Govindraj, namely his food, medical and other requirements. Therefore, the deceased V.R.Govindraj adopted the plaintiff as his son and executed a Will in respect of one of his properties in favour of the plaintiff. The Will was executed in favour of plaintiff in the presence of two attesting witnesses. Plaintiff had examined one of the attesting witnesses to prove the Will and the attesting witness had given cogent and convincing evidence with regard to the execution of the Will by deceased V.R.Govindraj. Plaintiff had complied with legal requirements for the proof of Will as per Sections 68 and 69 of Indian Evidence Act and therefore prays for grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint.

7.In response, the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 submitted that defendants are the brother's children of the deceased V.R.Govindraj. Deceased V.R.Govindraj died as a bachelor and therefore the defendants are the natural legal heirs to him as per Hindu Succession Act. Taking advantage of his proximity with deceased V.R.Govindraj, plaintiff had created this Will and fabricated the story that he was adopted by the deceased V.R.Govindraj. There is absolutely no evidence produced with regard to the adoption claimed by the plaintiff. T