Will proved by attesting witness establishing execution, sound mind; challengers fail to substantiate suspicious circumstances like infirmities, unequal bequest without evidence such as medical records, despite residing with testator.

JUDGMENT :

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

1.The 7^th and 9^th defendants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased 1^st defendant in T.O.S.No.6 of 2011 on the file of the Original Side of this Court aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2018 have filed the present Appeal.

2.The 1^st petitioner, K.Govardhana Prasad had filed O.P.No.546 of 2003 under Section 222, 255 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking grant of Probate with respect to a Will dated 28.07.1978 said to have been executed by Kuppaiah Prasad who died on 16.06.1985. Pending the Original Petition, the 1^st petitioner, K.Govardhana Prasad died and his legal representatives had been brought on record as 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners by an order dated 18.02.2014 in A.No.6258 of 2013.

3.In the Original Petition, he had also impleaded as respondents, the other legal representatives of Kuppaiah Prasad. They filed caveat and subsequently, O.P.No.546 of 2003 was converted to a Testamentary Original Suit and renumbered as T.O.S.No.6 of 2004. By judgment and decree dated 11.07.2018, the suit was decreed and probate was granted, necessitating the legal representatives of the deceased 1^st respondent therein K.Rajendra Prasad to file this appeal.

TOS No:6 of 2004:

4.It had been stated in the plaint that the testator M.Kuppaiah Prasad was possessed of property and had executed a Will dated 28.07.1978 nominating his son K.Govardhana Prasad as his executor. He died on 16.06.1985. It had been further stated that his wife Mrs.Devaki predeceased him and died on 03.03.1983. He left behind as his legal heirs this three sons namely, Sathiyanarayana Prasad, Govardhana Prasad / executor / plaintiff and Rajendra Prasad / 1^st defendant. It had been contended that the original Will was recently traced and immediately thereafter, the petition was filed seeking grant of probate. It had been further stated that the Will had been executed in the presence of witnesses who had also signed the Will witnessing execution. It had thus been sought that probate be granted with respect to the said Will.

5.The 1^st defendant K.Rajendra Prasad had filed written statement claiming that the Will was not a true and genuine document. It was further contended that it was not written or executed by M.Kuppaiah Prasad. It had been further stated that the witnesses were not known to the family of the deceased. At the time of execution of the Will, the testator was more than 75 years and was not keeping good health and was hard of hearing and did not have proper eye sight. He was not capable of going out without the assistance or help of others. He was senile. It was contended that it was highly improbable to contend that he moved over from his house at Tondiarpet to go over to the office of the advocate at Armenian Street, Chennai, to execute the Will. It was therefore contended that the Will had not been executed by him and was a fabricated document. It was contended that the signature was also forged signature. It was further contended that he did not know to read and write. It was f