Registered Will's genuineness presumed; proof under Evidence Act Sections 68/69 via signature identification by witnesses suffices when attesting witnesses unavailable; disputing party must prove suspicions, failure to adduce evidence upholds Will.

JUDGMENT :

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

The 2^nd defendant / Indira Jayaraman in T.O.S.No.34 of 2015, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, is the appellant herein.

2.The respondent, R.Nagarajan, had filed O.P.No.22 of 2015 before the Original Side of this Court under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking Letters of Administration to be granted to administer the estate of K.Ramanathan who died on 05.11.1996 leaving behind a Will dated 04.02.1985 executed and registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Anna Nagar, Chennai.

3.In the Original Petition, the respondent, R.Nagaraj who was the petitioner had impleaded his mother Mrs.Sitalakshmi Ramanathan, Mrs.Prema Sitaraman and Mrs.Indira Jayaraman and also Mrs.Usha Chandrasekar, Mr.Karthik Chandrasekar and Mrs.Niranjana Chandrasekar the legal representatives of C.R.Chandrasekar his deceased brother as respondents.

4.Among the said respondents, Mrs.Sitalakshmi Ramanathan and Mrs.Indira Jayaraman had filed caveat raising objections for the grant of Letters of Administration and consequently O.P.No.22 of 2015 was converted as T.O.S.No.34 of 2015 by order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 07.09.2015. The petitioner, R.Nagarajan, was termed as the plaintiff and the respondents, Sitalakshmi and Indira Jayaram were termed as the defendants.

5.During the pendency of T.O.S.No.34 of 2015, the first defendant, Sitalakshmi, died and the 2^nd defendant was recognized as her legal representative as per order dated 23.06.2022 in A.No.1838 of 2022.

T.O.S.No.34 of 2015:

6.The plaintiff claimed that his father K.Ramanathan had executed a Will dated 04.02.1985. He had however not appointed any executor and that he and his brother C.R.Chandrasekar were the two beneficiaries. Under the Will, the 1^st defendant, Sitalakshmi, was granted right to enjoyment of the property at Old No.5, New No.9, 8^th Cross Street West, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030 and after her lifetime, the ground floor was bequeathed to C.R.Chandrasekar and the first floor to the plaintiff R.Nagarajan. It was further contended that C.R.Chandrasekar died and his legal representatives had been impleaded in the Original Petition. It was also contended that the delay in filing the petition was neither wilful not wanton, but only because the Will was not available with the plaintiff.

7.In the written statement, the 1^st defendant contended that the property had been purchased by K.Ramanathan from Housing Board. It was further stated that the 2^nd defendant’s husband had passed away in the year 1998 and no reason had been given in the Will as to why she had been disinherited from a share in the property. It was further contended that the plaintiff had never taken care of her and only the 2^nd defendant had taken care of her. The 2^nd defendant had also spent monies towards renovation and maintenance of the property. It was further contended that K.Ramanathan had poor eyesight and his hearing was affected and therefore could not have written the Will out of free consent. It was further contended that there was considerable delay in filing petition seeking Letters of Administration. It was also contended that the existence of the Will was never informed to anyone and there was no reference about the same in any of the subsequent documents, particularly a settlement deed. It was further contended that the relationship between the plaintiff and his father K.Ramanathan was not cordial. It was contended that the Will should be proved in manner known to law.

8.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1.Whether the Will dated 04.02.1985 is true and genuine?

2.To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?

9.During trial, the plaintiff examined six witnesses as PW-1 to PW-6 and marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14. Among the witnesses, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and examined the 5^th respondent Karthik Chandrasekar as PW-2 and the 4^th re