Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 2821 (MAD)

C. Thirupurasundari v. C. Ananda Sundararaman

1999-12-15

K.NATARAJAN

body1999
Judgment : This testimentary original suit has been filed by the plaintiff to grant Letters of Administration with the Will annexed having effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. 2. The short facts are: The defendant Ananda Sundararaman is the brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was formerly residing at No.17, Nevis Road, London, S.W.17. As her mother who came to reside with her died at London, it became necessary for the plaintiff to take charge of the property and administer the same and, therefore, she has now come down to Madras with a view to stay there permanently. The writing hereunto annexed marked with the letter ‘A’ is the last Will of her mother C.Vasantha Devi. The property described in the Will exclusively belongs to her mother. The said Will was duly executed by her mother at Madras on 10. 1988 in the presence of witnesses, whose names appear at the foot of the Will, namely, D.Narasimhan and N.Gopalan. Under the Will, the property had been bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff and no executor was appointed by the Testatrix. The amount of assets which are likely to come into the hands of the plaintiff does not exceed in the aggregate a sum of Rs.5,20,000. The net amount after deduction of all items would be of the value of Rs.5,19,000. No application has been made by the plaintiff to any District Court or delegate or to any other High Court for probate of the Will. The plaintiff undertakes to duly administer the property and credits of the said C.Vasantha Devi, the deceased concerning the Will by first paying all her dues and then her legacies therein bequeathed as far as the asserts Will extend and to make a true and full inventory thereof and exhibit the same in this Court within six months from the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed. She further undertakes to render a true account of the said properties and credits within one year from the said date. Therefore, Letters of Administration may be granted in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The defendant in the written statement has alleged that the properties are joint family properties. The testatrix was not in a sound disposing State of mind and health during the time she executed the Will and she was always under the influence of the sister of the defendant. 3. The defendant in the written statement has alleged that the properties are joint family properties. The testatrix was not in a sound disposing State of mind and health during the time she executed the Will and she was always under the influence of the sister of the defendant. The Will is a fabricated document. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the execution of the Will. The truth, validity, genuineness and binding nature of the Will is also denied. The attesting witnesses are obligatory persons of the plaintiff. The defendant signed in some blank papers believing the plaintiff which have been used by the plaintiff for preparing consent affidavit. The defendant is the owner of the property and, therefore, no Letters of Administration can be granted. 4. On the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed for trial: .• 1. Whether the Will dated 10. 1988 propounded by the plaintiff is true and valid or whether it is a fabricated document. .• 2. Whether the Will propounded by the plaintiff was executed by the testatrix in a sound and disposing State of mind. .• 3. Whether the Will was obtained by the plaintiff from the Testatrix by undue influence. .• 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant of Letters of Administration. .• 5. To What relief. 5. Issues Nos.1 to 3: The dispute is regarding the holograph Will of Vasantha Devi, dated 10. 1988, marked as Ex.P-13. The plaintiff is the daughter and the defendant is the son of Vasantha Devi. The evidence of the propounder of the Will, namely, the plaintiff makes it clear that the property under dispute came to be owned by her mother, as per the settlement deed Ex.P-2, dated 12. 1969 executed by her father. Her father got the property from his aunt as per the original of Ex.P-1, settlement deed, dated 30.6.1956. Though it is contended by the defendant that the property is a joint family property and he has got a share by birth, having regard to the law on the subject of probate proceedings and the documents referred above, the learned counsel for the defendant, at the time of the arguments, fairly stated that he is not questioning the title of the Testatrix in respect of the property in the Will, Ex.P-13. 6. 6. The main suspicious circumstances alleged regarding the Will Ex.P-13 is the testatrix was always under the influence of her daughter, P.W.1 and the same has been brought about when the testatrix was not keeping sound health during the relevant time. namely, in the year 1988 and that the attestors to the Will are obligated persons of the plaintiff and it is not the true and genuine Will, of Vasantha Devi. 7. To appreciate the above contention, I have carefully and critically analysed the evidence of P.W.1, the propounder and P.W.2, one of the attestors to the Will and P.W.3, an advocate and cousin of the plaintiff and the defendant, with whom the testatrix had discussed about the procedure for executing the Will. The evidence of P.W.1 shows at the time the Will was executed, i.e., during October, 1988, she was in London working in the Indian Embassy and she was not present in India. She came to India in December, 1988 and at that time only, her mother told her about the holograph Will executed by her and bequeathing the property in her favour. P.W.2, one of the attestors to the Will deposed that he was working as a stenographer originally in the city civil court and after retirement in 1987, he joined the chambers of Mr.A.Venkatesan, Advocate, P.W.3 as Stenographer. According to him, the testatrix came to the office of Venkatesan on the previous day of the execution of the Will, namely, on 10. 1988 and discussed with Venkatesan about the procedure for executing the Will and she took some notes. According to him, the other attestor Narasimhan is a colleague of Mr.Venkatesan. P.W.2 added on 10. 1988, the testatrix came to the office of Mr.Venkatesan and she herself wrote the Will in her own handwriting and executed the document at about 12.45 p.m. in the presence of Narasimhan and himself. P.W.2 is very definite that the testatrix was hale and healthy at the time she executed the Will. He asserted they saw the testatrix executing the document and the testatrix saw he and the other attestor putting their signatures in the Will, Ex.P-13. Thereafter, the testatrix, himself, the other attestor Narasimhan and Mr.Venkatesan went to the Office of the Sub-Registrar at George Town and the Will was presented by the testatrix at 2.30 p.m. and there the Testatrix put her signature and also affixed her thumb impression. Thereafter, the testatrix, himself, the other attestor Narasimhan and Mr.Venkatesan went to the Office of the Sub-Registrar at George Town and the Will was presented by the testatrix at 2.30 p.m. and there the Testatrix put her signature and also affixed her thumb impression. He and Narasimhan signed as identifying witnesses before the Sub-Registrar and it was registered at 4.00 p.m. According to him, he met P.W.1 only in the year 1993 when she came to the office of Venkatesan to apply to the court for the issue of Letters of Administration. At that time, she came with her brother, the defendant and he typed the consent affidavit, Ex.P-17 of the defendant which was dictated by Mr.Venkatesan. P.W.2 emphatically denied the suggestion that the affidavit, Ex.P-17 was typed on a blank paper already containing the signature of the defendant Ananda Sundararaman. The evidence of P.W.2 further shows the other attestor to the Will Narasimhan is laid down with paralysis and he is not in a position to move about. 8. P.W.3 deposed he is practising as an advocate from 1959 and the testatrix is related to him. The plaintiff and the defendant are his cousin. On 10. 1986, the Testatrix came to his chamber and informed him about her intention to execute a Will and sought his advice regarding the modalities and formalities. When he asked her as to what she wanted to do with her property, she replied, she wanted to give the property to her daughter, the plaintiff. When she was further asked as to why she is leaving out her son and preferring the daughter, she told him that her son, the defendant had given to bad ways and if the property is given to him he would dissipate the same in no time. She being a literate, he advised her to write the Will in her own handwriting. According to P.W.3, he diectated a draft to her as per her instructions. He denied the suggestion that the testatrix did not execute the Will on her own but on his influence and she was not in sound disposing state of mind at that time. He also denied the suggestion that the signature of the defendant was obtained in a blank paper and the consent affidavit Ex.P.17 was typed on that paper subsequently. 9. He also denied the suggestion that the signature of the defendant was obtained in a blank paper and the consent affidavit Ex.P.17 was typed on that paper subsequently. 9. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the defendant did not even complete his graduation in spite of several attempts and one Shanthi was married to him from his own community and a daughter was born. The testatrix has borrowed amounts from the Egmore Benefit Fund and on several occasions, she had mortgaged the property. The discharged mortgage deeds are marked as Exs.P-4 to P-8. The evidence of P.Ws. makes it clear with great difficulty the building was completed and the loan was discharged with the funds supplied by the plaintiff and the defendant did not contribute any amount for the construction of the building. It is also noticed from the letters marked on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant had given to bad ways by drinking liquor and developing intimacy with some other girl outside their community and on many occasions, he put the mother to shame while she was residing with the defendant in the house by shouting after taking liquor, and the mother found it impossible to live with the defendant and he made the life of his mother miserable. It is also noticed he used to pester his mother to give money for drinking and was frittering away the money. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that once the mother had purchased 15 sewing machines for him to run a tailoring shop, but the defendant without concentrating on the business, had sold away all the machines and frittered away the money. From the conduct of the defendant, as seen from the evidence on record, it is clear the Testatrix had no confidence in her son and she apprehended that if property is given to the son, he would fritter away the hard earned property in no time and, therefore, the court sitting in the arm chair of the testatrix is unable to find anything wrong in the testatrix leaving out the son and giving the property to the daughter, the plaintiff, who was having concern for her mother and helping her throughout. .10. P.W.4, Rajamohan, Advocate, deposed that he was working as a Junior to Mr.M.K.Hidaythullah, Mr.Jayandra Das and others. .10. P.W.4, Rajamohan, Advocate, deposed that he was working as a Junior to Mr.M.K.Hidaythullah, Mr.Jayandra Das and others. According to him, the defendant was introduced to him by P.W.3 and he attested Ex.P-17 consent affidavit after the deponent, namely, the defendant signed Ex.P-17 in his presence. He denied the suggestion the affidavit Ex.P-17 was prepared with the signature of the defendant in a blank paper and he attested the same. As a matter of fact, the defendant in the cross-examination has categorically admitted that it is true that he gave his consent for probating the Will and later, he withdrew his consent. The defendant would also admit that the signature in the Will Ex.P-13 is the signature of his mother and during 1988 the testatrix was keeping normal health. Though he stated that she suffered a stroke, he had not produced any satisfactory evidence either oral or documentary to show his mother suffered a stroke and she was not keeping good health. In his written statement, the defendant has put the plaintiff only to strict proof, regarding the execution and attestation of the Will and he has not specifically pleaded that the Will is not genuine or has been brought about under coercion or undue influence. The defendant has not pleaded anything in his written statement or given any particulars regarding the undue influence exercised by the plaintiff, the manner in which the undue influence was exercised or how P.W.3 Advocate Venkatesan had influenced or coerced the testatrix on behalf of the propounder, the plaintiff as required under O.6, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a matter of fact, the evidence of the defendant without any doubt shows he had no grouse or grievance about the execution of the Will in favour of his sister by his mother and had reconciled about it and willingly accompanied the plaintiff to the office of P.W.3 and gave the consent affidavit, Ex.P-17. But later, on second thoughts and on legal advice, he chose to contest the petition filed by the plaintiff for issuing a probate with the fond hope that he may invoke the sympathy of the court by placing his poor circumstances and the fact that he is the father of five children. 11. But later, on second thoughts and on legal advice, he chose to contest the petition filed by the plaintiff for issuing a probate with the fond hope that he may invoke the sympathy of the court by placing his poor circumstances and the fact that he is the father of five children. 11. The second suspicious circumstance put forward by the learned counsel for the defendant is the plaintiff suppressed the fact she loved and married a person, from her mother. It was urged at the time of executing the Will, the testatrix was under the impression the plaintiff was a spinster and that alone mainly swayed her to execute the Will in favour of her daughter. The attention of this Court was invited to the evidence of P.W.1 in the cross-examination where she stated she got married on 27. 1988 and that was a registered marriage. However, it is noticed she explained the fact by deposing she did not want her mother to feel upset that she did not get married in her presence and she wanted her to be present for a regular wedding. According to her, there was a regular wedding in December, 1988 in which her mother was present. P.W.1, emphatically denied the suggestion in August, 1988 there was discussion between her and her mother regarding the settlement of the affairs of his brother. She said the defendant was jobless and he wanted to be jobless. On a careful consideration of the evidence, I am of the view that there cannot be any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant. Even assuming for a moment, the testatrix executed the Will in favour of her daughter P.W.1 under the impression that she was a spinster at that time and to secure her future, after coming to know P.W.1 got married, the testatrix could have cancelled the Will if she felt aggrieved or unhappy as a Will can be cancelled at any time. The fact that the testatrix lived for a period of four years after the execution of the Will is not disputed. Therefore, during that four years, she would have cancelled the same if she was aggrieved that her daughter suppressed the fact of her marriage and she was not a spinster on the relevant date of executing the Will. The fact that the testatrix lived for a period of four years after the execution of the Will is not disputed. Therefore, during that four years, she would have cancelled the same if she was aggrieved that her daughter suppressed the fact of her marriage and she was not a spinster on the relevant date of executing the Will. The evidence of P.W.1 makes it clear the testatrix attended her regular wedding and therefore, I am inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. I am satisfied the testatrix was happy with the marriage of her daughter and only therefore, she did not cancel the Will throughout her life. 12. The third suspicious circumstance alleged by the learned counsel for the defendant is even considering the testatrix had no love and affection for his son because of his bad ways and his pestering attitude to get money from her, there is no reason for the Testatrix to ignore the children of the defendant through his second wife. It was submitted the defendant is jobless and without any income and he has five children and is very much suffering. A grand mother life the testatrix would not have ignored the interest of the five grand children and she ought to have made some provision for the grand children, which has not been the case and that is a clear indication to prove that the Will, Ex.P-13 had been brought about the the influence of Advocate Venkatesan on behalf of the plaintiff and, therefore, the Will should be held as not genuine and true. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, the children of the defendant are the natural heirs and not providing anything for them in the Will, would vitiate the same. I find great difficulty to accept the abvoe submission. In my discussion in the previous paragraphs, I have pointed out how the testatrix was not happy with the defendant due to his bad ways and absence of concern to the well being and peaceful life of the testatrix and she had determined not to give anything in her property to the defendant as she had the genuine apprehension that he would dissipate the property in no time. In short, the testatrix had no concern to her son. In short, the testatrix had no concern to her son. It should be remembered at this stage the alleged grand sons of the testatrix are not born to the legally wedded wife of the defendant through the arranged marriage celebrated by the testatrix. The said grand children are the children born to the defendant through a lady with whom he had developed intimacy. It is apparent that the lady through whom the children have been born is not the legally wedded wife of the defendant and in the eyes of law she is only the kept-mistress of the defendant and the children born through such intimacy are only the illegitimate children, and therefore, they cannot be the natural heirs of the family. When the testatrix had no concern for her very son, because of his objectionable ways, it is too much to expect the testatrix would have concern for the children born through a kept-mistress who did not belong to the community of the testatrix. 13. The fourth suspicious circumstance submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant is as per the evidence of P.W.3, the draft Will has been prepared on the previous day of execution of the Will in his chambers and the said draft Will had not been produced by the plaintiff in court to find out the contents and the beneficiaries mentioned in the same. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, the nonproduction of the draft Will goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, the Will as produced in court, namely Ex.P-13 is not a believable document. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that the above question has been answered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the decision reported in Chinmoyee Saha v. Debendra Lal Saha A.I.R.1985 Cal. 349. In that decision, following: Gurudas Chatterjee v. Bijoy Banerjee Gurudas Chatterjee v. Bijoy Banerjee Gurudas Chatterjee v. Bijoy Banerjee (1970)74 C.W.N. 1041, at the end of para 11, it has been held: “…It is better to dispose of, in this connection, the argument relating to the nonproduction of the draft of the Will stated to be prepared by Lakshmi Narayan Mukherjee. It is in evidence that after the Will was written by P.W.4 on the basis of a draft brought by Lakshmi Narayan, the draft was kept in the custody of Lakshmi Narayan. It is in evidence that after the Will was written by P.W.4 on the basis of a draft brought by Lakshmi Narayan, the draft was kept in the custody of Lakshmi Narayan. Even then, as it has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Indu Bala v. Manindra Chandra Indu Bala v. Manindra Chandra Indu Bala v. Manindra Chandra A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 133, there is no evidence that there was an invariable practice of Lakshmi Narayan to preserve the draft of the Will. Moreover, the original Will being produced by the executrix, the non-production of the draft loses its importance and it does not cause any suspicion about the genuiness of the Will Gurudas Chatterjee v. Bijoy Banerjee Gurudas Chatterjee v. Bijoy Banerjee Gurudas Chatterjee v. Bijoy Banerjee (1970)74 C.W.N. 1041.” In the case on hand also, the original Will has been produced and one of the attesting witnesses has been examined to prove the due execution and attestation of the Will and, therefore, the non-production of the draft Will by the plaintiff, in my opinion Will not affect her case in any way. 14. Admittedly, the plaintiff, the propounder of the Will was not in India at the time the Will was executed by the testatrix and she was in England. The defendant is unable to produce any acceptable evidence to show the plaintiff or on her behalf. P.W.3 had exercised any influence or coercion over the testatrix to ignore the defendant and to bequeath the entire property to the plaintiff. The evidence on record and the surrounding circumstances clinchingly prove the testatrix is a strong Willed lady and she is capable of taking her own, independent and firm decision and no one can influence her mind. As already stated, the defendant himself in his evidence has accepted the Will to be true and the handwriting and signature in the Will are that of his mother. the Testatrix and has given the consent affidavit also. I am satisfied P.Ws.1 to 3 have spoken only the truth and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 clearly shows the testatrix wrote the Will in her own handwriting and put her signature in the Will, Ex.P-13 in the presence of P.W.2 and Narasimhan, and the testatrix saw P.W.2 and Narasimhan attesting the Will and P.W.2 and Narasimhan saw each of them attesting the Will. On a careful analysis of the evidence of P.W.3, I am of the view the same is reliable and makes it clear that the testatrix ascertained from him, only the procedure as to how a Will has to be executed and she did not consult him, to whom the property has to be bequeathed and the bequeathing of the property was the own independent decision of the Testatrix and she wrote the Will in her own handwriting. 15. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in respect of the holograph Will, reported in Mrs. Joyce Primrose Prestor v. Miss Vera Marie Vas Mrs. Joyce Primrose Prestor v. Miss Vera Marie Vas Mrs. Joyce Primrose Prestor v. Miss Vera Marie Vas J.T. (1996)4 S.C. 333. In para 12, I find the following observation: 12. While the presumption in the case of ordinary Wills is as stated above, in the case of” holograph Wills“, the presumption is all the more a greater presumption. Ex.P-1 is a” holograph Will“. It is one which is wholly in the handwriting of the testator. The Calcutta High Court in Ajit Chandra Majumadar v. Akhil Chandra Majumdar Ajit Chandra Majumadar v. Akhil Chandra Majumdar Ajit Chandra Majumadar v. Akhil Chandra Majumdar A.I.R. 1960 Cal. 551 at 552, stated about such a Will, thus: “The whole of this Will was written in the hand by the testator himself in English. The handwriting is clear and firm. The law makes a great presumption in favour of the genuineness of a holograph Will for the very good reason that the mind of the testator in physically writing out his own Will is more apparent in a holograph Will than where his signature alone appears to either a typed script or to a script written by somebody else. ” The writing of the Will and signature of the testator are admitted. There is also due and proper attestation in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. No suspicious circumstance appears on the face of the document, Ex.P-1. The Will appears to be moderate and rational. Viewed from the above angle, there is a great presumption. ” The writing of the Will and signature of the testator are admitted. There is also due and proper attestation in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. No suspicious circumstance appears on the face of the document, Ex.P-1. The Will appears to be moderate and rational. Viewed from the above angle, there is a great presumption. Even bordering on actual proof of the due execution and attestation of the Will.” In my opinion, the features as found by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above decision are available in the case on hand also and, therefore, the principles of law laid down in the abvoe ruling applies in all fours to the facts of the present case. 16. I have carefully read the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the defendant, namely, H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma and others H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma and others H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma and others A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 443; Rani Purnima Debi and another and other decisions. It is true that in cases where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiff and the defendant. What, generally, is an adversary proceeding becomes in such cases a matter of the courts conscience and then the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the Will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the Will was duly executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the Will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the Will, as pointed out by the Apex Court in the decision reported in (1977)1 S.C.C.369 But, in the case on hand, an in-depth analysis of the evidence on record, in my view, does not point out any suspicious circumstances as detailed by me in my discussion in paragraphs earlier. On the other hand, as pointed out earlier, the defendant himself has not chosen to question the genuineness and truth of the Will on undue influence and coercion, as no allegations to that effect has been put forward by him in the written statement and he has only put the plaintiff to strict proof, which in my opinion, the plaintiff had proved to the satisfaction of this Court. I am also not carried away by the fact that Ex.P-1 is a registered Will and, therefore, it stands on a different footing. This Court is aware that a registered Will shall also be proved in the same manner as any other Will and the ingredients of Sec.63 of the Indian Succession Act have to be established to the satisfaction of the court. In my opinion, some of the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the defendant, instead of helping his case, are against him. Few instances may be given: In A.M.Pichamuthu v. B.T.Selvaraj A.M.Pichamuthu v. B.T.Selvaraj A.M.Pichamuthu v. B.T.Selvaraj A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1431. in para 4 it is held: “4. We are unable to agree with the submission of Shri.Vepa P.Sarathy. It is true that Dr.Arulmani was old and impecunious Her niece the first defendant befriended her, visited her frequently took care of her personal comforts and even gave her small amounts of money. There is no evidence to lead us to the conclusion that everything that was done by the first defendant was nothing but a pretence. For the purposes of this appeal we may even assume that the actions of the first defendant were motivated and that the display of affection was a mere show. Even so it is difficult to conclude, in the absence of better or other evidence, that there was any undue influence or misrepresentation. It is clear from the evidence and it has been so found by the High Court that Arulmani was a woman of character and strong will.She was not likely to have been the victim of any undue influence or misrepresentation. More likely, she executed the deed of settlement out of a genuine sense of gratitude towards her niece who had befriended her in time of need and taken care of her. It is to be noticed here that after Arulmani revoked the deed of settlement after the first plaintiff rushed to the scene, the revocation of the deed of settlement was followed very soon, thereafter by an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs and the two half-sisters. The execution of the agreement of sale so soon after the deed of revocation would lead anyone to suspect that the deed of revocation itself was the result of pressure applied on Arulmani by her sisters and half-sisters. It is unnecessary for us to dilate further on this question. The execution of the agreement of sale so soon after the deed of revocation would lead anyone to suspect that the deed of revocation itself was the result of pressure applied on Arulmani by her sisters and half-sisters. It is unnecessary for us to dilate further on this question. It is sufficient to say that there is no evidence of undue influence or misrepresentation and the deed of the settlement cannot be set aside on this ground….” In Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and another v. Panchanan Bankerjee (Dead) By Lrs. and others Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and another v. Panchanan Bankerjee (Dead) By Lrs. and others Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and another v. Panchanan Bankerjee (Dead) By Lrs. and others , (1995)4 S.C.C. 459 it has been held: “The circumstance of deprivation of natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. So natural heirs would be debarred in every case of Will; of course, it may be that in some cases they are fully debarred and in others any partially. As in the present case, the two executors are sons of a half-blood brother of the testatrix whereas the objectors descendants of a full blood sister, the disinheritance of the latter could not have been taken as a suspicious circumstance, when some of her descendants are even beneficiaries under the Will. The identification by the lawyer could have been regarded as a suspicious circumstance if a wrong person would have been identified as the testatrix. That, however, is not the case of the objectors. So, there is no bane in this circumstance. The third circumstance cannot also be said to be suspicious. Witnesses in such documents verify whether the same had been executed voluntarily by the person concerned knowing its contents. In case where a Will is registered and the Sub-Registrar certifies that the same had been read over to the executor who, on doing so, admitted the contents, the fact that the witnesses to the document are interested loses significance. The documents at hand were registered and it is on record that the Sub-Registrar had explained the contents to the old lady. Objection as regards ‘ubiquitous’, cannot be there if there be other circumstances on record to show the voluntary character of the document. The documents at hand were registered and it is on record that the Sub-Registrar had explained the contents to the old lady. Objection as regards ‘ubiquitous’, cannot be there if there be other circumstances on record to show the voluntary character of the document. Such circumstances were present in this case.” In Smt.Indu Bala Bose and others v. Manindra Chandra Bose and another Smt.Indu Bala Bose and others v. Manindra Chandra Bose and another Smt.Indu Bala Bose and others v. Manindra Chandra Bose and another (1982)1 S.C.C. 20 , in para 7, it has been held: “This Court has held that the mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a Will by Sec.63 of the Succession Act. The onus of proving the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where however there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the court accepts the Will as genuine. Even where circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signatures of the testator, the condition of the testators mind, the dispositions made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances, or there might be other indications in the Will to show that the testators mind was not free. In such a case the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last Will of the testator. If the propounder himself takes a prominent part in the execution of the Will which confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be taken. into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the court would grant probate, even if the Will might be unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations”. 17. into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the court would grant probate, even if the Will might be unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations”. 17. Applying the principles of the above ruling to the facts of the case, I am clearly of the view that P.W.1, the propounder was not in India when the Will, Ex.P-13 was executed by the testatrix and the defendant had not succeeded in establishing P.W.1 had influenced the mind of the testatrix or P.W.3, advocate Venkatesan had done anything on her behalf to influence her mind to bequeath the entire property in favour of the plaintiff. To put it in short, the propounder had explained all the suspicious circumstances put forward by the defendant and this Court has no other alternative except to grant probate as prayed for by the plaintiff. For the reasons stated above, I find the Will, Ex.P-13, dated 10. 1988 propounded by the plaintiff is true and valid and the Will was executed by the testatrix in a sound and disposing state of mind and the Will was not obtained by the plaintiff by undue influence. Issues 1 to 3 are found accordingly. 18. Issue No.4: In view of the findings on Issue Nos.1 to 3, the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration. 19. Issue No.5: In view of the findings on Issue Nos.1 to 4, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for. 20. In the result, the suit is allowed. Probate of the Will and Letters of Administration in respect of Ex.P-13 are granted in favour of the plaintiff having effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. The Receiver appointed by this Court in O.A.No.826 of 1995 shall deposit whatever amount he has collected, in the court to the credit of this proceedings (T.O.S.No.6 of 1994) and the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the same. 21. Before parting with this case, it may be appropriate to mention that this Court had the greatest sympathy for the defendant and his five children and, therefore, granted several opportunities to the defendant to arrive at an amicable settlement with his sister by contacting her through whatever means possible and also suggested to both the counsel to make the compromise materialise. Even though both the learned counsel did their best, the defendant was unable to come forward with any concrete proposal of convincing his sister, the plaintiff and, therefore, this Court has no other option except to deliver the judgment on the merits of the case. This being a probate proceedings, this Court has to implement the wishes of the testatrix as expressed by her in the Will Ex.P-13 and it is not permissible for this Court to work out the equities, as the law does not entertain the same. 22. Considering the close relationship of the parties, namely, sister and brother, there is no order as to costs.