OSA/176/2026 of M.A.Kannan Vs K. Kalyani on 6 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) A challenge has been made to the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the Original Petition filed for grant of Letters of Administration of the Will dated 07.03.1981.

2. The petitioner is the son and Respondents 1 to 3 are the daughters of the testator Aravamudha Iyengar. Respondents 4 to 6 are the grandchildren of the testator born through his deceased son M.A.Santhanam and Respondents 7 to 9 and 10 to 12 are the grandchildren of the testator born through his deceased daughters P.Janakavalli and K.Vasantha.

3. The deceased Aravamudha Iyengar left a Will dated 07.03.1981 bequeathing the properties to all the parties. O.P.No.856 of 2024 had been filed only in respect of the 'C' schedule property viz., the property bearing Old Door No.31, previous Door No.30, New Door No.38, Vedantha Desikarswamy Street, Palathope, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004 measuring 880 sq.ft, which was bequeathed in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner, the said 'C' schedule property devolved on him and he became the absolute owner, after the life time of Jayammal, who was given only a life interest and that Jayammal died on 22.01.2024. According to the petitioner, the original Will was in the custody of late M.A.Santhanam, the father of Respondents 4 to 6 and during shifting of residence, the original Will was misplaced and could not be traced.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the respondents had also filed their consent affidavits before the learned single Judge and on the side of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2. It is also stated that as both the attesting witnesses died, one Mrs.Usha Sriraman, the daughter of first attesting witness M.A.Parthasarathy was examined as PW2 and she not only identified the signature of the attestor but also stated that her late father M.A.Parthasarathy was the first attesting witness.

5. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned single Judge was right in not granting Letters of Administration of the Will in favour of appellants herein.

6. We have carefully perused the evidence of PW2. PW2 not only identified the signature of her grandfather viz., executant of the Will, but also identified the signature of her father who stood as one of the attesting witnesses. Her evidence satisfies the requirements of Section 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872. As discussed above, the respondents had also filed their consent affidavit and it is the specific case of the parties that original Will has been lost during shifting of the house and the same could not be traced. The petitioner has sufficiently explained the reason.

7. When the loss of original Will has been properly explained by adducing evidence and is not objected by the other side, we are of the view that there is no difficulty in accepting the secondary evidence. The learned single Judge ought to have taken into account, the proper explanation given for the loss of original Will. Once proper explanation is given and when the secondary evidence is otherwise admissible, the learned single Judge ought to have granted Letters of Administration on the basis of the copy of the Will as the petitioner has properly explained the reason for the loss and the same was not objected to by the other legal representatives.

8. Further, as the law permits the grant of Letters of Administration on a copy of the lost Will as per Section 237 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, what is required to be seen is whether the execution has been properly proved in the manner known to law and whether a properly authenticated copy had been produced. The evidence of PW2 clearly satisfies the requirement of Section 69 of Evidence Act.

9. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the learned single Judge was not justified in dismissing the Original Petition on the ground that photocopy produced has not been proved to be a true copy of the Original Will and no witness had last seen the Will to identify and confirm the photocopy filed before the Court. When the family members identified and admitted the execution of the Will, the learned single Judge non-suiting the petitioner in our view is not correct. Accordingly, the point is answered.

10. Accordingly, this Original Side Appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.06.2026 in O.P.No.856 of 2024 is set aside and the petitioner is entitled to grant of Letters of Administration with Will annexed in respect of 'C' Schedule property to have effect limited to the State Tamil Nadu and limited to the assets mentioned in the affidavit of assets. The petitioner is directed to execute a security bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in the name of the Assistant Registrar

(Original Side) of this Court, if not already paid. The petitioner shall file a full and true inventory within six months from the date of receipt of the Letters of Administration and shall render a true and proper account within one year thereafter. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gpa

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. gpa OSA No. 176 of 2026 06-10-2026