OSA/214/2024 of G. Premkumar Vs Rama Mohana Rao
2026:MHC:1515
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page1 of 25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 10.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 17.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU
OSA No. 214 of 2024
AND
CMP Nos.23780 of 2024 and 3214 of 2025
G. Premkumar
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Rama Mohana Rao
..Respondent(s)
This appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent read with
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original side Rules of the Madras High Court, to
set aside the Judgement and decree of this Court dated 16.08.2024 in
T.O.S.No.21 of 2020.
For Appellant(s): Mr.G.Vijayanand
For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Karunakaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page2 of 25
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page3 of 25
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 7th 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page4 of 25
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 1/3rd 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 at the time of execution of the Will?
3.Whether plaintiff is entitled to letters of administration
(grant of probate) as prayed for?”
6.During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and also examined
Sridhar Narayanan one of the attesting witness as PW-2 and N.Sivaprasad the
other attesting witness as PW-3 and G.Rajkumar, the third son of G.Sarojini as
PW-4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page5 of 25
7.The plaintiff also marked Exs.P1 to P32. Ex.P1 dated 09.02.1996 was
the Will of Sarojini. Exs.P6 and P7 were consent affidavits of G.Jawahar and
G.Rajkumar. Ex.P9 was the Death Certificate of T.Narayanan, one of the
attestors. Ex.P11 was the affidavit of T.Narayanan who died after the filing of
the Original Petition. Exs.P12 and P13 were the signatures of T.Narayanan and
N.Sivaprasad in the Will. Ex.P19 and P20 were electronic mails exchanged
between G.Premkumar and G.Rajkumar. Exs.P25, P26, P27, P28 and P29 were
also printouts of electronic mail exchanged among the three brothers.
8.The defendant G.Premkumar examined himself as DW-1. He did not
mark any document.
9.On the basis of the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence
adduced, the learned Single Judge noted that by examining PW-1, the executor
under the Will, and by examining PW-2, the son of one of the attesting witness
and by examining PW-3, the other attesting witness, the Will had been duly
proved before the Court. It was also noted that PW-1, the executor had stated
that he was a good friend of the family of the testatrix and that the testatrix also
took his consent before appointing him as an executor. He also stated that
subsequent to the execution of the Will, he was informed about its execution by
the testatrix herself. The learned Single Judge further noted that PW-2 identified
the signature of his father T.Narayanan in the Will and the signature was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page6 of 25
marked as Ex.P12. The second attesting witness N.Sivaprasad was examined as
PW-3 and he deposed that the testatrix informed him that she had executed the
Will giving the property to G.Jawahar and had requested him to sign as the
second attesting witness. He identified his signature and the other signatures in
the Will. He further deposed that he and G.V.N.Rayudu were colleagues in IIT
Madras and good friends. He further deposed that he signed the Will before the
testatrix and that she was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of
execution of the Will.
10.The learned Single Judge also addressed the arguments advanced on
behalf of the defendant / appellant herein that the evidence of PW-3 was
contrary to the affidavit of the other attesting witness, which had been marked
as Ex.P11, by observing that the Original Side Rules prescribed a specific form
for the affidavits of the attesting witnesses and that the affidavit of T.Narayanan
had been prepared in accordance with Form No.56 appended to the Original
Side Rules of the Madras High Court.
11.It was further observed that the documents are legal documents and
prepared inconformity with the said Form No.56. With respect to the evidence
that T.Narayanan had signed the Will in the presence of the testatrix and not in
the present of the second attesting witness, the learned Single Judge had
observed that T.Narayanan did not survive to give evidence or to clarify the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page7 of 25
actual execution of the Will and whether it was in the manner projected by him
in the affidavit of attesting witness or in the manner spoken by PW-3.
12.The learned Single Judge further held that Section 63(c) of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 only requires a Will to be attested by two or more
witnesses and that each of them should have seen the testator sign or put his
mark on the Will and that the Will should have been signed by the witnesses in
the presence of the testator. The provision also makes it clear that it was not
necessary that more than one witness should be present at the same time. It was
further observed that there was no particular form of attestation.
13.The learned Single Judge further addressed the argument that the
testatrix had not signed the first page of the Will and held that this was not an
invalidating circumstance. The Will had been typed back to back in a single
sheet of paper and therefore the absence of the signature in the front page would
not render the will invalid. It was also observed that it was not the case of the
defendant that the contents of the first page have been interpolated or changed.
14.The learned Single Judge therefore held that the Will had been duly
executed and attested in accordance with the law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page8 of 25
15.The learned Single Judge then examined the suspicious circumstances
projected by the defendant that there was no disclosure of other sons. It was
held that this cannot be considered as a suspicious circumstance. It was further
observed that the testatrix had mentioned that she had three sons. The fact that
there was a factual error with respect to the age of the testatrix and the statement
that the other sons were earning huge sums of money was incorrect was also
held to be insignificant. With respect to the date of the Will and the allegation
that there were some overwritings, the learned Single Judge observed that there
was no overwritings as claimed by the defendant. With respect to the allegation
that the scribe was not examined, the learned Single Judge held that there was
no necessity for the scribe to be examined. The law only requires that one of the
attesting witnesses must be examined.
16.A further allegation has been raised that there was delay in filing the
application seeking probate. It was observed that the Will came to light only
after the locker in the name of the testatrix was opened in the presence of all the
three sons. This fact was also spoken about by PW-4 and was also not disputed
by the defendant when he tendered evidence as DW-1.
17.Finally, with respect to the contention that the jurat portion was
wrong, the learned Single Judge found that after the schedule mentioning
property, the jurat had been given. It was held that the testatrix was in a sound
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page9 of 25
and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will and that the
objections raised were not significant to enough to hold that the Will had not
been properly executed. On the basis of the aforementioned reasons, the learned
Single Judge decreed the Testamentary Original Suit and granted probate as
prayed for.
18.Challenging the said judgment, the defendant had filed the present
appeal.
19.Heard Mr.G.Vijay Anand, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.T.Karunakaran, learned counsel for the respondent.
20.Mr.G.Vijay Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, took
the Court through the Will and pointed out that, in the Will, the age of the
testatrix had been wrongly given. He further contended that, it was further
mentioned that the other two sons of the testatrix were in USA earning large
sums of money, when as a fact the appellant was only studying in USA. He
further pointed out that the names of the other two sons had not been mentioned
in the Will. He further stated that the property which was bequeathed under the
Will was not the self-acquired property of the testatrix, but purchased in her
name from and out of the earnings of G.V.N.Rayudu, the father who was a
professor in IIT Madras and earning Rs.10,000/- per month in the year 1992.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page10 of 25
21.The learned counsel further pointed out that no substantial reason had
been given for the testatrix to disinherit her other two sons and bequeath the
entire property to the respondent. He contended that since the property had been
purchased from the earnings of G.V.N.Rayudu, the testatrix had capacity to
bequeath only 1/4 th undivided share. He further contended that a perusal of the
Will would show that it had been drafted by a legal person and pointed out that
the testatrix had studied only up to 7 th grade and was not well versed with law
and procedure. He further pointed out that the Will had not been signed in the
first page. He further pointed out that the date of the Will had been overwritten.
He further argued that the Will had not been attested in accordance with the
stipulations provided under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
He further pointed out that during trial PW-3 Sivaprasad was the only living
attesting witness and he had very clearly stated that when he attested the Will,
the first attesting witness was not present.
22.The learned counsel also pointed out that in the affidavit of the other
attesting witness T.Narayanan, which had been marked as Ex.P11, he had stated
that he attested the Will in the presence of PW-3 Sivaprasad. The learned
counsel therefore pointed out that contradictory statements had been presented
before the Court with respect to the manner of attesting the Will. It was pointed
out that, it is evident that both the witnesses had not independently signed the
Will and that the testatrix had also not independently signed the Will and that all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page11 of 25
three of them had not signed in the presence of each other and therefore had not
witnessed the signing of the Will by the testatrix or by each other. The learned
counsel therefore argued that this would only indicate that there was no proper
attestation of the Will and on that one ground itself, the Court should have
decline to grant probate for the Will.
23.The learned counsel further pointed out the jurat portion, as found in
the Will, which stated that both the attesting witnesses had signed in the
presence of each other, whereas, in the evidence of PW-3 Sivaprasad, the
attesting witness, it was clear that he did not sign in the presence of the other
attesting witness, T.Narayanan who had already attested the Will. The learned
counsel therefore stated that this Court should hold that the Will had not been
properly attested and therefore had not been proved before this court.
24.With respect to the age of the testatrix, the learned counsel stated that
the testatrix was 57 years old at the time of execution of the Will and not 59
years, as stated in the Will. He also pointed out that the sole beneficiary
G.Jawahar alone was living with the testatrix and alleged he had evidently
exercised undue influence and coercion to execute the Will. The learned counsel
stated that these suspicious circumstances are enough to warrant rejection of the
Will.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page12 of 25
25.In this connection, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 14 SCC 500, Raj Kumari Vs.
Surinder Pal Sharma, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that
evidence on the attestation of the Will are mandatory in nature and any failure
and deficiency in adhering to the essential requirements would result in
invalidation of the instrument.
26.The learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1959) AIR SC 443, H.Venkatachala
Iyengar Vs. B.N.Thimmajamma & others, wherein, it had been held that when
suspicious circumstances are raised, the obligation of the propounder was not
merely to prove the execution of the will, but also to adduce evidence to remove
the suspicious circumstances.
27.The learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 74, Smt.Jaswant Kaur Vs.
Smt.Amrit Kaur and Others, wherein the Court had held that only when cogent
and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the
making of the Will are given, the Will should be rejected. In that case, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that it was evident that the Will had been
drafted by a lawyer but no evidence had been adduced as to who drafted the
Will and who typed the Will. It did not reveal where it has executed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page13 of 25
28.The learned counsel pointed out that this judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was followed by this Court in the judgment reported in 2001 (2)
CTC 744, S.Thirunavukkarasu Vs. B.Kandasuamy Reddy and Two Others ,
wherein, it had been held that the evidence of the propounder of the Will should
satisfy the conscience of the Court. In that particular case, it was found that the
propounder was the sole beneficiary of the Will and that without his role the
Will could not have come into existence.
29.The learned counsel finally placed reliance on the judgment reported
in (2025) INSC 7, Lilian Coehlo and Others Vs. Myra Philomena Coalho ,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed valid execution and
genuinety of the Will and had held that a finding should be given on the
genuinety of the Will and also on whether the Will was validly executed. It was
further held that, even it was found that it was properly executed, it would not
indicate that it was genuine. It had been stated that the propounder should
remove all suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court.
30.Placing his arguments on the above grounds, the learned counsel
argued that the judgment of the learned Single Judge should be interfered with
and should be set aside and the appeal should be allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page14 of 25
31.Mr.T.Karunakaran, learned counsel for the respondent, however,
contested these contentions. The learned counsel pointed out that the Will had
been executed in proper form and during the course of trial, the one available
attesting witness had been examined to prove the execution of the Will and the
son of the other attesting witness had also been examined. He pointed out that
both the attesting witnesses had identified the signatures found in the Will and
also the signature of the testatrix. The learned counsel stated that sufficient
reasons had been given in the Will to disinherit the appellant and the other son
of the testatrix. He pointed out that the other son Rajkumar had been examined
as PW-4 and had not raised any suspicion about the execution of the Will and
had also not stated that the Will was not genuine. He pointed out that it was a
fact that at the time of execution of the Will, only the beneficiary under the Will
was looking after the testatrix and her other two sons were in USA. He pointed
out that the statement that they were earning huge sums of money cannot be
construed as a statement to invalidate the Will.
32.With respect to the age of the testatrix, the learned counsel stated that
it was extremely insignificant whether she was 59 years or 57 years and argued
that on that one ground the Will need not be rejected. He also pointed out the
beneficiary under Will had no role in the preparation of the Will. The execution
of the Will had been proved by PW-2 and PW-3 and the attestation was also in
accordance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. He further pointed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page15 of 25
out that the testatrix was in a sound and disposing state of mind as pointed out
by PW-3, who was a good friend of G.V.N.Rayudu and also his colleague in IIT
Madras and there was no ground to suspect his bonafide or his statements.
33.The learned counsel stated that no substantial grounds had been raised
to point out that the Will was executed in a suspicious manner necessitating
rejection of the Will. The testatrix had signed on the reverse page and not
signing on the first page would not affect the genuinity of the Will. He pointed
out that it was not the case of the appellant that there was interpolations in the
first page of the Will. He also pointed out that the provision stipulates atleast
one attesting witness to be present, at the time when the testatrix signs the Will
and PW-3 had very clearly spoken about this particular fact. He also pointed out
that the executor of the Will / the respondent was a close family friend and it
was only natural that the testatrix appointed him as the executor of the Will,
since she had complete confidence with him. He also pointed out that the Will
was located in a safe locker, which was opened in the presence of all the three
sons and thereafter, the petition had been filed seeking grant of probate of the
Will.
34.The learned counsel argued that the grounds raised by the appellant
does not warrant rejection of the Will. He stated that the learned Single Judge
had correctly appreciated the facts and contended that the appeal should be
dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page16 of 25
35.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the
material records.
36.The following issues arise for consideration:
1.Whether the execution of the Will marked as Ex.P1 had been
proved during the course of trial.
2.Whether the circumstances alleged by the appellant to be
suspicious circumstances warrant invalidation of the Will?
37.In view of the fact that the evidence adduced with respect to both the
points overlapped, both the points are taken up for determination together.
38.O.P.No.648 of 2019 had been filed by the respondent Rama Mohana
Rao seeking probate of a Will dated 09.02.1996 said to have been executed by
G.Sarojini wife of G.V.N.Rayudu. They had three sons, G.Premkumar,
G.Jawahar and G.Rajkumar. Under the Will she had bequeathed the property at
Gandhi Nagar in Chennai to her second son G.Jawahar. Her third son
G.Rajkumar had not raised any objection and during trial had been examined as
PW-4 and affirmed execution of the Will. The first son, G.Premkumar had
raised objections for grant of probate and on his objections the Original Petition
was converted into a Testamentary and Original Suit and renumbered as TOS
No.21 of 2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page17 of 25
39.It is the contention of the appellant who was the defendant in the suit
that the Will projected is surrounded with suspicious circumstances. According
to him, the age of the testatrix was 57 years, while she had given it as 59 years
in the Will. He further contended that though the sale deed of the property stood
in her name, it was purchased out of the earnings of the father G.V.N.Rayudu
who was a professor in IIT Madras and died unfortunately on 17.03.1992 owing
to the injuries suffered in an accident. It was his contention that the father was
earning Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of death. It was contended that from
and out of those earnings the property had been purchased, and therefore, the
testatrix can never claim to be the absolute owner of the property.
40.It was further contended that in the Will, the names of the three sons
had not been given except the name of the legatee, G.Jawahar. It had been
mentioned in the Will that the other two sons were in USA earning huge sums
of money, which fact was not correct since the appellant was a student at that
time. It was further contended that the reason given to bequeath the property
only in favour of G.Jawahar raises suspicions since the Will had been executed
within a short time of him returning back from USA. It was therefore contended
that he had exerted influence and that the testatrix had signed the Will without
being in a sound and disposing state of mind.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page18 of 25
41.It had been further contended that the jurat portion stated that the Will
had been signed by two attesting witnesses in the presence of each other and
that they had seen the testatrix signing the Will. However, this was in direct
contradiction to the evidence of PW-3 who had stated that when he signed the
Will, the other attesting witness had not present. Pointing out all the above
circumstances, it has been urged that this Court should set aside the judgment of
the learned Single Judge and invalidate the Will.
42.We had given careful consideration to the said arguments advanced.
43.The Will admittedly had been signed in the second page, but however,
it has been typed in one single sheet and typed back to back and it is therefore
not required that each page should be signed. It is also not the case of the
appellant that the contents in the first page had been altered or amended or
manipulated. There is no overwriting in the first page. We are therefore not
convinced with the argument that since the Will had not been signed on both
sides of the paper, it should be rejected.
44.The age of the testatrix has been given as 59 years. We do not give
much credence to the fact that she was 57 years and not 59 years and that
therefore, the Will should be rejected. She had given the age 59. It is not a
serious circumstance or even a suspicious circumstance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page19 of 25
45.The fact whether the property had been purchased by her or from and
out of the earnings of G.V.N.Rayudu is an issue which requires examination of
title of the property. In a probate proceedings, the Court cannot examine the title
of the property but should confine itself to determine the genuinety of the Will
and whether the Will had been properly attested. It is admitted that the title deed
stands in the name of the testatrix. This has not been questioned by the appellant
from the date of the sale deed. We hold that unless the sale deed is set aside in
manner known to law, it has to be held that she was the absolute owner of the
property with rights to deal with the property in any manner whatsoever.
46.During trial, to prove the Will, the plaintiff had examined PW-2 and
PW-3. PW-2 was the son of T.Narayanan, one of the attesting witnesses. The
Death Certificate of T.Narayanan had been marked as Ex.P9. Since he was not
available, the plaintiff had examined his son as PW-2, who had identified the
signature of T.Narayanan in the Will, which signature was marked as Ex.P12.
The other attesting witness, Sivaprasad, was examined as PW-3. He also
identified the signatures in the Will. However, his evidence is challenged on the
ground that he had stated that when he signed the Will, the other attesting
witness T.Narayanan was not present.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page20 of 25
47.Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is as follows:
63.Execution of unprivileged wills: Every testator, not
being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual
warfare, 1*[or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner
at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules:--
(a) …….
(b) …….
(c) The will shall be attested by two or more
witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix
his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will,
in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has
received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his
signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and
each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of
the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one
witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of
attestation shall be necessary.
48.The provision requires that a Will should be attested by two attesting
witnesses. They must have seen the testator signing the Will. They must have
signed the Will under the direction of the testator. They must receive an
acknowledgement of their signature from the testator. But however, very
significantly “it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at
the same time”. This provision stipulates that the witnesses should see the
testator signing the Will and the testator should see the witnesses signing the
Will.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page21 of 25
49.If there are two witnesses, it is not required that they both should be
present at the same time. PW-3 had stated that he had signed the Will and that
was acknowledged by the testatrix and she affirmed her signature in the Will
and he had seen that she had signed the Will. Arguments had been advanced
about Ex.P11, the affidavit of T.Narayanan, the other attesting witness. As
correctly pointed out by the learned Single Judge it is inconformity with Form
No.56 of the Original Side Rules. It is a standard form. The son of T.Narayanan
had been examined as PW-2 and he had affirmed the signature of his father.
50.The appellant had not raised a doubt that the signature of the testatrix
is not her signature. It is not the case of the appellant that T.Narayanan or
Sivaprasad had not signed the Will. They had signed the Will as witnesses
inconformity with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Will
had also been proved in manner known to law required by law under Sections
68/69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We hold that the ground raised on this
issue does not warrant invalidation of the Will.
51.The statement of the testatrix that the appellant was earning huge sums
of money when he was only a student also is not significant enough to reject the
Will. It is the presumption of any parent that the sons who were in USA are
living a better standard of life than in this country.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page22 of 25
52.It is further held that the grounds raised by the appellant on the factum
of the attestation of the Will are not legally sustainable. The evidence of PW-3
alone is sufficient to hold that the Will had been properly executed. He had also
spoken about the mental status of the testatrix.
53.The respondent is the executor of the Will. He was a family friend. He
is also a Chartered Accountant. It is only natural that the testatrix should rely on
him and burden him the task of an executor under the Will. We hold that this is
not the suspicious circumstance to invalidate the Will.
54.Moreover, PW-3, Sivaprasad was a former colleague of
G.V.N.Rayudu in IIT Madras and it is only natural that the testatrix had called
upon him to be a witness in the Will executed by her.
55.With respect to jurat portion, we hold that PW-3 had spoken about the
execution of Will and when one witness is sufficient to be present, we hold that
there has been compliance of the said requirement.
56.In (2021) 14 SCC 500, Raj Kumari Vs. Surinder Pal Sharma referred
supra it had been observed that execution and attestation of the Will had not
been proved in manner known to law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page23 of 25
57.But however, in the instant case, we hold that execution and attestation
had been proved by examining both PW-2 and PW-3. The suspicious
circumstances as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant do not
warrant rejection of the Will. The circumstances pointed out are only minor
mistakes, which certainly do not affect the proof adduced towards execution of
the Will. It is not the case of the appellant that the testatrix was not in a sound
state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. The fact that the second son
was living with her would not be a circumstance to reject the Will or to
automatically hold that influence had been exerted on her. He was looking after
her. The other sons were in USA. It is only natural that the property was
bequeathed to him. It is also in evidence that, in accordance with the terms of
the Will, the jewellery had been divided among the brothers.
58.The repeated contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that
there are innumerable suspicious circumstances will have to be rejected since
those circumstances do not go to the root of the execution of the Will. It is
neither denied nor disputed that the Will was not signed by the testatrix. She
had affixed her signature on the reverse side of the single paper. Merely because
she had not signed on the first page would not invalidate the Will. The jurat
portion is also written. The witnesses have also spoken about the attestation. A
Will is executed only to deviate from the normal line of succession and
disinheritance cannot be termed as a suspicious circumstance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page24 of 25
59.We are not inclined to hold that the Will has to be rejected. We hold
that the deficiencies, pointed out, if at all they can be termed as deficiencies are
not sufficient to reject the Will. The learned Single Judge had considered each
and every aspect and had rendered a well considered judgment. We are not
inclined to interfere with the same.
60.The judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge in T.O.S.No.21
of 2020 dated 16.08.2024 is upheld. The Appeal stands dismissed. No order as
to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.)
17-04-2026
smv
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 214 of 2024
__________
Page25 of 25
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
smv
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
OSA No. 214 of 2024
17-04-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis