The court upheld the validity of the testamentary Will, emphasizing the importance of testamentary capacity despite the testator’s age and the burden of proof on the challenger.

1. The petition originally filed for the grant of Probate has been converted as suit in view of the caveat filed by the defendant herein.

2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff is the executor of the testament executed by deceased A. Radhakrishnan, who died on 18.6.2011. His wife Padmalochani predeceased to him on 3.4.1980 and they had no class I legal heirs. The defendant is the class II legal heir of the testator. The schedule mentioned properties are the self acquisitions of the testator, who was a retired District Judge. The testator Radhakrishnan had bequeathed the schedule mentioned immovable properties in favour of his brother's grandson, R. Krishna Kumar and hence, he alone is the beneficiary under the Will. After the 16th day ceremony, the Will was read out by the plaintiff / executor to the members of the family.

(ii)The amount of assets does not exceed in the aggregate a sum of Rs.1,40,00,000/-, after deducting the deductibles amounting to Rs.20,000/- and the value of asset is Rs.1,49,80,000/-. The plaintiff undertakes to duly administer the property and credits of the deceased A. Radhakrishnan and, in any way concerning his Will by paying first his debts and then the legacies therein bequeathed so far as the assets will extend and to make a full and true inventory thereof and exhibit the same within six months from the date of grant of probate.

3. The brief facts of the defendant's case are as follows:

(i) It is stated that the testator was not in good health and was suffering on account of age old problems at the time of the alleged execution of the Will. The deceased Radhakrishnan was not in a mental state and capable of deciding to execute a Will and he was not in good mental condition to understand the consequences of his actions and hence the said Will is not a genuine one. It is further stated that the alleged Will is dated 5.12.2008 and the testator died on 18.06.2011, but the O.P. has been filed only on 27.02.2013. It is also stated that there were no class I legal heirs and the parties are Class II legal heirs only.

(ii) According to the defendant, the plaintiff was living with the deceased and taking advantage of his proximity, the plaintiff had misused his position to grab the property, even though the testator Radhakrishnan was not in sound and disposing state of mind. The plaintiff has not produced correct genealogy along with his petition. As on the date of death of the said Radhakrishnan, i.e., on 18.6.2011, none of his brothers and sister were alive and only the sons and daughters of his brothers and sister were alive. The defendant, being the son of Gopalakrishnan, i.e., brother of the testator, is also entitled to a share, as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Court, vide order dated 20.06.2016, had framed the following issues: -

1. Whether the registered Will dated 5.12.2008 is true and Valid?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to probate the Will?

3. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled?

5. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On the side of the defendants, no one was examined, however Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. The details of the documents are here under:

Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiffs:

Exhibits produced on the side of the defendants:

Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff:

P.W.1 - C. Raghavan

P.W.2 - M. V. Chakrapani

P.W.3 - K. Easwaran

Witnesses examined on the side of the defendant:

Nil.

6. The learned counsel for the p