A registered Will is presumed genuine unless serious doubts about its execution or the testatrix's capacity are proven.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.Kumaresh Babu J.)

This Appeal has been preferred by the petitioner in T.O.S.No.22 of 2008 challenged the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2017, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition for grant of Letters of Administration on the ground that the genuineness of the Will had not been established.

2) The brief facts leading to the appeal are as follows. One Mrs. K. Saroja married Mr. R. Kothandaraman Pillai and had two sons (the petitioners herein) and two daughters (the respondents herein). The testatrix is stated to have executed a Will dated 14.07.2006 bequeathing her properties exclusively in favour of her sons. The petitioners are the sole beneficiaries under the said Will. The testatrix died on 11.07.2007 leaving behind the petitioners and respondents as her legal heirs.

3) The respondents contested the petition disputing the genuineness of the Will. It was alleged that the Will was brought about by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence exercised by the sons. It was further contended that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances, particularly when the testatrix was seriously ill and admitted in hospital.

4) During the pendency of the proceedings, the first petitioner died and his legal heirs were brought on record as petitioners 3 to 5.

5) Upon the pleadings, the learned Single Judge framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 14.07.2006 executed by the Testatrix Mrs.K.Saroja?

2) Whether the Will said to have been executed by the testatrix is not a genuine Will as alleged by the defendants?

3) Whether the Will said to have been executed by the testatrix was under fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence as alleged by the defendants?

4) Whether the testatrix was not in a sound state of mind at the time of executing the Will as alleged by the defendants?

5) To what reliefs the parties are entitled?

6) Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition holding that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and that the petitioners failed to dispel the same satisfactorily. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, one of the sons and the legal representatives of the deceased son have preferred the present appeal.

7) Heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.K.Bhanumathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr.V.Manohar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent 1, 3 and 4.

8) The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is contrary to settled principles governing proof of Wills. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in treating the execution and registration of the Will in the evening hours at the Sub- Registrar Office was under suspicious circumstance. According to the appellants, such reasoning is based on conjectures and not supported by legal principles.

9) It was further submitted that the marking found in the Will indicating the place of signature was erroneously treated as suspicious, though it was only a minor discrepancy. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the intention of the testatrix to bequeath her properties to her sons was clearly expressed in the Will (Ex.P8) and that the Court ought to have given due weight to her testamentary autonomy.

10) The appellants further relied upon Ex.P4, an agreement allegedly executed between the testatrix and the seco