S. NAGAMUTHU,J.

"Is an unprobated Will admissible in evidence to prove the cancellation of an earlier Will upon which letters of administration is sought for? It is on this question these appeals resolve around.

2. Seeking letters of administration with a certified copy of the registered Will said to have been executed by one Mrs.Saraswathiammal on 22.06.1990 at Chennai in the presence of witnesses the appellants filed an application. Since it was opposed by the respondents herein, as per Order XXV Rule 55 of the Original Side Rules of this Court, it was converted as a suit and numbered as TOS No.38/2004. The testatrix died on 27.08.2001. According to the appellants, the said Will was the last Will of the deceased Saraswathiammal. The respondents herein who are the defendants in the suit have filed a written statement wherein, they have stated that the registered Will dated 22.06.1990 referred to above was subsequently cancelled by Mrs.Saraswathiammal during her life time by another Will dated 13.12.1993 and the same was registered as Document No.105 of 1993. It is because of the said cancellation by execution of the fresh Will dated 13.12.1993, which according to the respondents is the last Will of the deceased, the appellants herein are not entitled for letters of administration on the basis of the registered Will dated 22.06.1990, it is contended.

3. During the course of trial, the respondents filed I.A.No.4245 of 2009 seeking permission to mark 5 documents in evidence on their side namely (i) certified copy of registered document in Doc.No.105/1993 dated 13.12.1993; (ii)letters written by the second applicant/second defendant’s mother Saraswathi Ammal/testatrix; (iii) encumbrance certificate; (iv)service register of the second applicant; and (v)Death Certificate of two attesters of the Will dated 13.12.1993. Seeking to condone 475 days of delay in filing the above documents, the respondents filed I.A.No.4244 of 2009.

4. The appellants opposed both the Interlocutory Applications. They opposed the marking of the Registered Will dated 13.12.1993 on the ground that it was not probated as per law and so, as per Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the said document could not be proved in evidence in the suit.

5. However, it was the contention of the respondents herein that though it is true that the Registered Will dated 13.12.1993 remains unprobated, it is admissible in evidence in the said suit because the same is sought to be used only for collateral purpose and not to prove any right or title derived by means of the said document. Having considered the above submissions, the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 10.09.2009, allowed the petition thereby negativing the objections of the appellants herein. The delay was also condoned. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants are before this Court with these Original Side Appeals.

6. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records carefully.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants has not canvassed the grounds raised in, the appeal against the order in Application No.4244 of 2009. That apart, we have also gone through the records which clearly indicate that the respondents have explained the delay to the satisfaction of the trial Judge. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge in Application No.4244 of 2009.

8. Though the appeal in O.S.A.No.397 of 2010 has been preferred challenging the orders of the learned Single Judge comprehensively in respect of all the five documents, today, across the Bar, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the challenge in respect of the documents other than the unregistered Will dated 13.12.1993 is not pressed and therefore, there need not be any adjudication in respect of these documents. In other words, it is the submission of the learned counsel that subject to proof of the said documents in the manner known to law, thes