The court confirmed that minor discrepancies in the execution of a Will do not invalidate it, provided the Will is duly attested and the testatrix was of sound mind.

JUDGMENT :

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

The defendant in T.O.S.No.21 of 2024 on the file of the Original Side of this Court aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court is the appellant herein.

2.The respondent herein, Rama Mohana Rao in his status as Executor of the last Will and testament of G.Sarojini had filed O.P.No.648 of 2019 for grant of probate of the Will dated 09.02.1996, said to have been executed by the testatrix, G.Sarojini. The respondents in the Original Petition, G.Premkumar, G.Jawahar and G.Rajkumar were sons of late G.V.N.Rayudu and the testatrix of G.Sarojini. G.V.N.Rayadu died on 17.03.1992. G.Sarojini died on 26.07.2016. It was claimed in the Original Petition that she had executed a Will on 09.02.1996 in the presence of two witnesses G.Narayanan and N.Sivaprasad. By the Will, she had bequeathed the property at Plot No.315, Corporation Door No.3 and Present Door No.5/3, 1^st Canal Cross Street, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020 to the 2^nd respondent G.Jawahar. It was also stated in the Will that she was bequeathing her movable properties also in favour of her second son Jawahar. She had given the reason that she was living with him and he was taking of her while the other two sons were in USA.

3.The 3^rd respondent G.Rajkumar did not contest the grant of probate. However, the 1^st respondent G.Premkumar filed an objection affidavit, consequent to which O.P.No.648 of 2019 was converted as T.O.S.No.21 of 2020.

4.G.Premkumar, who was now categorized as defendant filed his written statement. He contended that the testatrix G.Sarojini was said to have purchased the property bequeathed by her on 29.07.1974 by sale deed registered as Document No.168 of 1974 but that in the recitals of the sale deed it had not been specified that the property had been purchased out of her self-earned income. It was his contention that G.V.N.Rayadu was gainfully employed in IIT Madras as a professor and earning Rs.10,000/- per month in 1992 when he died on 17.03.1992 while in service. G.Sarojini had studied up to 7^th grade and was a house wife. It was further contended that the property had been purchased only out of the earning of G.V.N.Rayadu. It was further stated in the written statement that the Will was not executed in the presence of the witnesses as stated. It was further stated that there was no reason to exclude him and his other brother from inheriting the property and bequeathing the property only to one son. It was further contended that he alone had taken care of their father G.V.N.Rayadu who had suffered an accident in February 1992 and been admitted in Apollo Hospital, Chennai and subsequently died on 17.03.1992. He had performed the last rites and ceremonies of his father. It was therefore contended that the Will was false and fabricated and suspicious. It was further contended that the statement he and other brothers were earning huge sums of money was also false. At the time of execution of the Will on 09.02.1996 he was pursuing his studies in USA. He claimed that he was entitled to an undivided 1/3^rd share in the property. He further stated that the legatee G.Jawahar had taken advantage of his proximity with the testatrix and manipulated and coerced and unduly influenced her and obtained the Will in a fraudulent manner excluding his other two brothers. It was therefore contended that the suit should be dismissed.

5.On the basis of the said pleadings, the following issues were framed:

“1.Whether the Will dated 09.02.1996 is true and valid?

2.Whether the testator (testatrix) was in disposing state of mind