OSA/209/2021 of THILAGAVATHY Vs SRI RAJAVELU on 29 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by GK. Muthukumaar J.) This Original Side Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2020 passed in T.O.S.No.40 of 2001 on the file of the

Original Side of this Court whereby the Learned Single Judge had proceeded to grant Letters of Administration to the second respondent/ second plaintiff.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per the array in the cause title of the Testamentary Original Suit. Factual Matrix:

3. The plaintiff, Sarojini had originally filed O.P.No.906 of 1999 under Sections 222, 276 and 290 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (The Succession Act) before the Original Side of this Court seeking for grant of probate of the Will dated 26.4.1999 said to be executed by M.Subramanian. The said Testamentary Original Suit was contested by the third respondent, Kamala. In view of the said contest, it was converted into T.O.S.No.40 of 2001 to be tried as a Testamentary Original Suit. Upon the death of the plaintiff Sarojini, Rajavelu, who was the first respondent in the Testamentary Original Suit was transposed as the second plaintiff therein. The relief seeking grant of probate was then amended to the relief of seeking Letters of Administration in favour of the second plaintiff. Upon the death of Kamala, the third respondent in the Original Petition, her sister, S.Saraswathi, as her legal heir was impleaded as the fourth respondent therein. Then, upon the demise of S.Saraswathi, her only daughter, Thilagavathi was impleaded as the fifth respondent in the said

Testamentary Original Suit. The said Thilagavathi is the appellant in this appeal.

4. Upon trial, Exs.P1 to P7 and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked through P.W.1. On the defendant’s side, Exs.D3 to D8 were marked through D.W.1. Exs.D2 to D23 were marked through D.W.2 and the Court document exhibited through D.W.2 was marked as Ex.C.W.1. Two witnesses each were examined on the side of the plaintiffs and defendants.

5. Upon completion of trial and hearing the Counsel for the parties, the Learned Single Judge proceeded to pass a judgment and decree granting Letters of Administration to the second plaintiff with respect to the last Will and Testament dated 26.4.1999 of the late M.Subramaniyan.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, the impleaded fifth defendant, Thilagavathi, has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

7. Heard the detailed submissions of Mr.V.Ragavachari, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and that of Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

Submission of Counsel :

8. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the execution of the Will itself is doubtful and that various suspicious circumstances exist which have not been considered by the Learned Single Judge prior to grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the second plaintiff. Upon taking the Court through the oral testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also that of D.W.1 and D.W.2 he would contend that the execution and attestation of the Will, Ex.P1 has not been proved. He would also highlight the various suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the said will which have not been addressed by the plaintiffs. He would also take the Court through the various exhibits viz., Exs.P1, D110, D11, C1, D14, D17 and D18 in particular and the pleadings, to substantiate his contentions. He would also contend that the respondents had created documents to knock off the property of the Testator. He would thus sum up his submissions stating that the conduct of parties and the creation of Ex.P1, manipulation of documents, prompting of P.W.2 by Sasireka, the second respondent herein, when evidence was given, have all not been considered by the Learned Single Judge prior to grant of Letters of Administration and hence would submit that the Order under Appeal is erroneous and requires to be set aside.

9. In support of his contentions, he would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sardari Lal Vs. Bishan Dass and Others reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1266, as regards the circumstance of disinheritance of the wife.

10. Per contra, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, firstly there is no caveatable interest for the appellant to contest this lis. He would further contend that in the light of Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, even assuming that the Will, Ex.P1 was not executed, still under the normal law of inheritance applicable to the parties, respondents 1 and 2 as the legal heirs of the deceased Testator, M.Subramaniyan, would be entitled to the property subject matter of the Will. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the son and daughter of the deceased Testator as evident from their Birth Certificates, being Exs.D11 and D10 respectively. The appellant is the daughter of S.Saraswathi, who in turn is the sister of Kamala, who is the wife of the deceased Testator, M.Subramaniyan. So, when the respondents as children of the deceased Testator are heirs who are available for inheritance under law, the property would devolve upon them in the absence of the Will. This is as per the mandate of Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act. Hence he would contend that the appellant in either case does not stand to gain she has no caveatable interest so as to maintain this lis. He would also take the Court through the written statement and the evidence of parties, especially the attesting witness and the signatures of the Testator, based on Ex.D1, progress report of Rajavelu and the Will, Ex.P1 and contend that the signatures are more or less similar and that the execution of Ex.P1 is not denied. He would draw the attention of this Court to the fact that Kamala in her written statement does not challenge the execution of Ex.P1, but only contends that the same was only obtained by undue influence and coercion. He would point out to paragraph Nos.5 and 9 of the written statement to stress his point.

11. The Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the grounds now said to be canvassed by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant have not been raised before the Learned Single Judge and hence, it ought not to be raised and considered in this appeal. He would further contend that the inconsistencies pointed out by the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant are unconnected to the case on hand and hence are not relevant for the purpose of this lis. He would therefore contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the order of the Learned Single Judge confirmed.

12. In support of his contentions, he would rely upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the judgment of this Court in the case of;

(1) Ramani U. Krishnan v. Dr. Ammini Praveen Joshua @ Veena reported in 2005 (4) CTC 165;

(2) Madhukar D.Shende Vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage reported in (2002) 2 SCC 85;

(3) Anand Pradeepkumar Fredrick Vs. Gunasekaran Victor Devasahayam and others in O.S.A.Nos.319, 320 and 321 of 2022 dated 07.06.2023;

13. Upon hearing the submissions of the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the respondents, upon consideration of the petition filed in O.P.No.906 of 1999, the amended plaint filed by the first plaintiff for probate, upon the death of Kamala, the amended plaint filed by the second plaintiff, Rajavelu for Letters of Administration upon the death of the first plaintiff, Sarojini, the written statement filed by the first defendant, Kamala, the documents on record particularly, Exs.P1, D10, D11 and D1, the progress report of Rajavelu, Exs.D17, D18, D3, D7, D8 and the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, D.W.1 and D.W.2, this Court finds that the following points arise for consideration in this appeal;

(1) Whether the appellant has caveatable interest to maintain this proceeding?

(2) Whether the execution of the Will, Ex.P1 has been proved?

(3) Whether there exists suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, Ex.P1?

Point No.1 : Whether the appellant has caveatable interest to maintain this proceeding?

14. To address this point, it is necessary to examine the Will, Ex.P1 and Exs.D10, D11 and D4 in particular. An examination of the Will reveals that the Testator, M.Subramaniyan has two wives, namely, Kamala and Sarojini. It is further evident that the Testator has no issues through Kamal and that the second plaintiff and the third defendant are the son and daughter of the Testator through his wife Sarojini. This is also evident from Exs.D11 and D10, which are their birth certificates. From Exs.D10 and D11, it is evident that Sarojini who is the mother of the second plaintiff and the third defendant, is the wife of the Testator, M.Subramaniyan. Further, from the Will, Ex.P1, it is also evident that Sarojini, the first plaintiff has been appointed as an executor under the Will. The Will also clearly mentions that the wife, Kamala, has her own provisions and hence no specific provision has been made to her under the Will. In this regard, the pension certificate issued in favour of Kamala, Ex.D4, may be referred too. From which, it can be inferred that the pension, upon demise of the Testator, would flow to his wife, Kamala, the first defendant. The Will also mentions that the third defendant, Sasireka, the daughter of the Testator, is employed, married and that the Testator’s wife, has made necessary provisions for Sasireka from her personal property.

15. In this factual scenario, it is seen that in the event the Will takes effect, the beneficiary would be the second plaintiff who is also the son of the Testator. The fact that the second plaintiff and the third defendant are the son and daughter of the deceased Testator, has not been denied by Kamala, the first defendant in her written statement. So, these facts are undisputed facts. Therefore, in the event of the Will taking effect, the property bequeathed under the Will, would go to none other than the Testator’s own son, the second plaintiff, excluding his daughter and two wives, who are parties to the Testamentary Original Suit. On the other hand, in the absence of the Will, the Testator’s property mentioned in the Will which undisputedly is the Testator’s property would go to his legal heirs, namely, his two wives, Kamala and Sarojini, his son Rajavelu and daughter Sasireka. In this case, Kamala had no issues and hence upon her death on 2.5.2009, which is after filing of the Probate Original Petition, the property of the Testator as per Section 15(2)(b) of the Succession Act, would devolve on the second plaintiff and the third defendant as class I heirs and not upon the fifth defendant, subsequently Sarojini also died. Therefore, in any event, the fifth defendant does not qualify for inheritance even in the absence of the Will. In such circumstances, it is clearly evident that the fifth defendant, the present appellant has no caveatable interest in this lis. This is all the more as she has no right to succeed wholly or partially to the estate of the deceased Testator in the absence of the Will.

16. Therefore, it is seen that, in this instant case, when the son and daughter of the Testator are available, the appellant who is the daughter of the sister of one wife of the Testator would fall outside the line of succession and would not be entitled to inherit any property of the Testator. Hence, she would be a stranger to the probate proceedings as no right is available to her, that can be adjudicated in this lis. Hence, this Court finds that the appellant does not have a caveatable interest to maintain her contest to the Will and hence, this appeal at her instance deserves to be dismissed.

17. The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramani U. Krishnan v. Dr. Ammini Praveen Joshua @ Veena reported in 2005

(4) CTC 165, paragraphs 14, 16 to 19, which are extracted as herein under, “18.……..To make it clear that a person who seeks for revocation of Probate should have a right to claim citation or to oppose the grant. As rightly concluded by the learned Judge, the applicant does not have a claim to cite or oppose the grant of Probate. Further, a person who is not claiming any right under testator nor a beneficiary of a Will nor who is likely to inherit the estate of the deceased, whose claim is adverse to the interest of the testator, cannot file an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for revocation of the Probate. Here, the applicant is claiming neither the right from the testator nor is she the beneficiary under the Will, nor is she likely to inherit the estate of the deceased or her claim is adverse to the interest of the testator.

19. Though it is contended that the respondent should prove the Will in a common form after impleading the applicant, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the applicant herself very clearly knows that she has nothing to do either with the Will or its Probate. She has no caveatable interest, since her remedy is only in respect of agreement of sale, which has no connection with the Probate of Will. If at all the agreement is true and genuine, she can take action through her suit by impleading the respondent and the present owner of the property, subject to law of limitation.” clearly state that a person who seeks revocation of probate should have a right to claim citation or to oppose the grant. It has further held that a person who is not claiming any right under the Testator nor is a beneficiary of a Will nor one who is likely to inherit the estate of the deceased cannot file an application under Section 263 of the Succession Act for revocation of the probate. Therefore, the present appellant who neither claims a right from the Testator nor is a beneficiary under the Will is not likely to inherit the estate of the deceased and hence is not entitled to maintain this lis. Hence, we hold that the present appellant has no caveatable interest and this appeal at her instance deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Therefore Point No.1 is answered accordingly. Point No.2 : Whether the execution of the Will, Ex.P1 has been proved?

18. In this regard, it is relevant to revert to the written statement of the first defendant, Kamala. At paragraph Nos. 5 and 9 of the written statement, she claims that the Will, Ex.P1 was obtained by undue influence and coercion. Paragraph Nos. 5 and 9 of the written statement reads as follows:

“5. This Defendant further submits that a mere reading of the Will would clearly show that the Will was obtained under undue influence and coercion in favour of the beneficiary. This Defendant submits that the statements in the Will clearly shows that the said Will was tutored and the Testator due to undue influence was compelled and coerced into executing this Will.

9. This Defendant Vehemently denies the averments contained in Para 7 to 9 of the Petition. As already stated this Defendant submits that the said Will purported to have been executed by the Testator was obtained by undue influence and coercion and in any case in as much as the said property that was willed was not purchased by the Testator out of his own earnings, the question of executing a Will in respect of the said property does not arise. Hence, the question of grant or consent by this Defendant does not arise.” Therefore, from the above averments in the written statement, it is clear that the objection to the will was only on the ground that the execution was based on undue influence and coercion. Nowhere in the entire written statement, the execution of the Will has been denied. Hence, we find that the execution of the Will, Ex.P1, is not in dispute. Further, P.W.2, Brindha, one of the attesting witnesses to the Will, Ex.P1 has been examined and her examination is in compliance with Section 63 of the Succession Act. A perusal of her evidence would reveal that her evidence meets the requirement of Section 63 of the Succession Act. Hence, this Court finds that the execution of the Will is not in dispute, and on the other hand, the same has been validly proved. As regards undue influence and coercion, it is a separate ground distinct from execution. Unfortunately, there is no evidence on record, either documentary or oral to establish these averments. Therefore, it can only be held that the plea of coercion and undue influence has not been proved. Hence point No.2 is answered accordingly. Point No.3 : Whether there exists suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, Ex.P1?

19. From an examination of the Service Register of the Testator, Ex.D1, the progress report of Rajavelu and the Will, Ex.P1, we find that the signature of the Testator is more or less the same and this Court is an agreement with the finding of the Learned Single Judge on this issue. This is for the reason that the signature of the Testator in the Service Register, Ex.D1, which is of the year 1953 may vary over a long period of time. Significantly, the signatures in volume 2 of the Service Register which relates to the year 1977 and 1978, more or less match with the signature of the Testator on the Will, Ex.P1 which was executed on 26.4.1999. Therefore, much need not be read into the issue of variance in signature, in view of the above. This is all the more in view of the evidence of the attesting witness and the fact that Kamala, the wife of the Testator in her written statement, does not dispute the execution of the Will, Ex.P1. Therefore, small variations in signature, when the execution of the Will itself is not in dispute, looked at in the light of the evidence of the attesting witness, P.W.2, would only show that there is nothing suspicious as regards the slight variants in the signature as pointed out by the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. Hence, we hold that, this by itself would not be a suspicious circumstance warranting interference by this Court. As regards the other suspicious circumstances, as to the relationship of Kamal and Sarojini to the Testator and Rajavelu, the second plaintiff and Sasireka, the third defendant to the Testator, the Will itself clearly states the relationships. The birth certificates, Exs.D10 and D11, the legal heirship certificate, Ex.D3 the pension certificate, Ex.D4, all confirm the relationship of the parties interse. Further, the relationship of the parties has not been denied in the written statement of Kamala. In such circumstances, no suspicious circumstances can be attributed to the submissions of the Learned Senior Counsel stating that the relationships have not been established. Hence, we hold that there is no suspicious circumstance as regards the relationship of the parties which we find stands established as mentioned above.

20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhukar D.Shende Vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage reported in (2002) 2 SCC 85 are extracted hereunder, “9…………….. If there is nothing unnatural about the transaction and the evidence adduced satisfies the requirement of proving a will, the court would not return a finding of “not proved” merely on account of certain assumed suspicion or supposition. Who are the persons propounding and supporting a will as against the person disputing the will and the pleadings of the parties would be relevant and of significance.”

held that, if there is nothing unnatural about the transaction and the evidence adduced satisfies the requirement of proving a Will, the Court would not return a finding of “not proved” merely on account of certain assumed suspicion or supposition. In the light of this judgment, it is seen that in the present case, the execution of the Will is an undisputed fact. On the other hand, the execution and attestation of the Will have been established as required under Section 63 of the Succession Act by the attesting witness, P.W.2. In such circumstance, we find that there is nothing unnatural or suspicious in the execution of the Will, Ex.P1 as contended by the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. Therefore, these can only be termed as remote or assumed suspicion, not material and vital to these proceedings as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said judgment.

21. Further, the inconsistencies in the oral testimony of the various witnesses as highlighted by the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant do not directly touch upon the execution and attestation of the Will. We find that they are totally unconnected to the issue on hand and hence it cannot be treated as a suspicious circumstance for the purpose of these proceedings. That apart, the inconsistencies in the evidence relating to the relationship of parties and the conduct of the parties are not material to this lis and hence do not require our attention. Similarly, the other submissions of the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant based on the sale deed and the release deed, Ex.D7 and D8 are not relevant for the purpose of this lis and hence we do not intend to dwell into them. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents had created documents with intention to knock off the property of the Testator as contended by the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.

22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sardari Lal Vs. Bishan Dass and Others reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1266, relied upon by the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant at paragraph 41, which is extracted hereunder, “41. The circumstance of disinheriting a wife may or may not be considered suspicious. It all depends on the facts of a case. Ordinarily, where beneficiaries under the Will are other class I heirs of the testator, such as son or daughter, a bequest made in their favour by depriving the wife, by itself, may not raise suspicion as the testator may be contemplating arranging his estate for the future with the hope that those beneficiaries would take care of his wife. But disinheriting a wife, who had all throughout been with the testator and had cordial relations with him, in favour of a stranger, or a distant relative, raises suspicion, thereby creating a doubt whether the Will is free expression of will of the testator made with full understanding of the disposition made therein.”

held that disinheriting a wife may or may not be considered as a suspicious circumstance and that it depends on the facts of the case. Further, disinheriting a wife, who had all throughout been with the Testator and had cordial relations with him, in favour of a stranger or a distant relative, raises suspicion. In our considered opinion, this will not apply to this instant case on hand as the facts here are totally different. This is firstly because the Will has not been executed in favour of a stranger, but in favour of the second plaintiff, who undisputedly is own son of the Testator. Secondly, the Will clearly states that the contesting wife, Kamala has been provided for. This is corroborated by the fact that from the Testator’s Pension Certificate, Ex.D4, it is clear that the pensionary benefits of the Testator were given to Kamala by the Testator himself as his wife. Hence, it is not as if the Testator did not make any provision for his wife Kamala as he had made her the beneficiary of his pension as evident from the Pension Certificate, Ex.D4. Therefore, this judgment would not further the cause of the appellant. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, Ex.P1.

23. For the reasons stated above, we therefore find that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court which on the other hand is well reasoned and based upon the proper consideration of the material on record. We therefore concur with the findings of the Learned Single

Judge and confirm the same. In view of which, this Original Side Appeal stands dismissed.

24. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties shall bear their own costs. (P.V.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VKR To The Sub Assistant Registrar(Original Side), High Court of Madras, Chennai.

P.VELMURUGAN, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. VKR OSA No. 209 of 2021 29-09-2026