Judgment : Plaintiff filed O.P.No.288 of 1996 for issue of letters of administration. The O.P. was converted into T.O.S. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The plaintiff is one of the legatees under the Will and is related to the deceased being his daughter in law. The deceased M.P.Sivagnanam executed a Will dated 26. 1993, at 15, Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Madras in the presence of the witnesses and this Will is the last Will and testament of the deceased M.P.Sivagnanam. The said M.P.Sivagnanam died leaving behind him his the legal heirs to succeed to his properties. As per the Will, the legal heirs of Thirunavukkarasu, predeceased son of the deceased are entitled to the properties, the amount of assets which is likely to come into the hands of the plaintiff does not exceed in aggregate a sum of Rs.6,31,040.91. The plaintiff is entitled to issue of letters of administration. 3. Thedefendant filed written statement contending as follows: This defendant is one of the daughters of late M.P.Sivagnanam and who died on 10. 1995. The said Sivagnanam had great love and affection for this defendant. The defendant and her sister Kannaki and the children and wife of her pre-deceased brother Thirunavukkarasu are the only heirs of late Sivagnanam. There was no misunderstanding between the defendant and her father. The defendant was in very good terms with her father. There was no reason for omitting the defendant and her sister as his heirs. The defendant was not given any jewels. The recital in the Will that the defendant and her sister are provided with two houses in Madras is not correct. The Will is unnatural one. There is no reason for disinheriting the defendant or her sister and the Will should have been prepared by undue influence by the plaintiff over the deceased. The recital in the Will that the defendant was given houses is false. Even though the allotment of land from the Housing Board is in the name of the defendants brother, the entire cost of the land as well as the instalment towards building cost was paid by the defendants house. The Will was obtained by undue influence. The deceased could not have bene in sound disposing state of mind at the time of executing the alleged Will. So, the plaintiff is not entitled to issue of letters of administration. 4. The Will was obtained by undue influence. The deceased could not have bene in sound disposing state of mind at the time of executing the alleged Will. So, the plaintiff is not entitled to issue of letters of administration. 4. Onthe above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: .• (i) Whether the Will was executed by deceased testator. .• (ii) Whether the Will was executed by the testator under undue influence of the plaintiff. .• (iii) To what reliefs. 5. Issues: Petitioner/plaintiff is the daughter in law of the testator, late M.P.Sivagnanam. The said Sivagnanam had two daughters, the defendant and one Kannaki and the predeceased son Thirunavukkarasu. The deceased M.P.Sivagnanam executed the Will dated 26. 93 at Madras under Ex.P-2. Under Ex.P-2, the testator has given life estate in respect of immovable properties to the plaintiff, his daughter in law who is the wife of his predeceased son Thirunavukkarasu and then the properties are to pass to the plaintiffs two sons viz., the grandsons of the testator through his predeceased son after the life time of the plaintiff. The other daughter of the deceased testator Kannaki has no objection for issue of letters of administration in favour of the plaintiff and she has filed consent affidavit. All the children of the plaintiff have filed consent affidavit agreeing for issue of letters of administration in favour of the plaintiff. So, the defendant is the only contesting party. 6. According to the plaintiff, M.P.Sivagnanam executed the Will Ex.P-2 and it was his last Will and testament and it was validly executed and attested by the attestors and the plaintiff is entitled to probate of the Will. The defendant contends that Ex.P-1 was obtained under undue influence and it is unnatural and there is no reason to disinherit the defendant or her sister Kannaki. 7. Ex.P-2 is the registered Will and it is in the handwriting of the testator. The defendant as D.W.1 also admits in her evidence that Ex.P-2 is in her fathers handwriting. The plaintiff as P.W.1 has spoken in her evidence that Ex.P-2 is written by her father in law in his own handwriting and she came to know about the Will only after the death of her mother in law. The defendant as D.W.1 also admits in her evidence that Ex.P-2 is in her fathers handwriting. The plaintiff as P.W.1 has spoken in her evidence that Ex.P-2 is written by her father in law in his own handwriting and she came to know about the Will only after the death of her mother in law. P.W.1 further speaks in her evidence that her father in law bequeathed the properties to his grand children for the reason that his son was not provided with any property and the testator was hale and healthy during the year 1993 at the time of executing the Will. She asserts in her evidence that the Will was not brought about under influence. P.W.1 states that even after execution of the Will, the testator was healthy and running his magazine and attending all the functions and looking after his organisation. She states that the testator was not well for a month prior to his death. So, the evidence of P.W.1 is that the testator was hale and healthy and in a sound disposing state of mind while executing the Will and the Will was not brought under undue influence. The Will was executed on 26. 1993. The testator died on 10. 1995. So, the testator lived for more than 2 years after executing the Will. So, at no stretch of imagination, it can be contended that the testator was not hale and healthy and was not in a sound disposing state of mind and the Will was brought under undue influence. 8. P.W.2, the attestors of the Will has also spoken in his evidence that the testator was in a sound disposing state of mind on the date of executing the Will Ex.P-2. P.W.2 knows the testator for 50 years. His evidence shows that the testator told him about the Will in the year 1993 and asked him to be one of the attesting witnesses to the Will. His evidence shows that himself and another witness Meikandar P.W.3 were present at the time of executing the Will Ex.P-2 in the house of the testator at Alwarpet, Chennai. P.W.2 states that himself and P.W.3 saw the testator signing the Will and the testator also saw P.W.2 and P.W.3 putting their signature in the Will. P.W.2 states that the testator alone wrote all the five pages in the Will and he was present throughout. P.W.2 states that himself and P.W.3 saw the testator signing the Will and the testator also saw P.W.2 and P.W.3 putting their signature in the Will. P.W.2 states that the testator alone wrote all the five pages in the Will and he was present throughout. He states that the typewritten pages 6 to 9 of the Will were also kept ready at the time of executing the Will. P.W.2 says that the testator has signed in those pages also in his presence and also in the presence of P.W.3. He says that he went to the Sub-Registrars office at the time of executing the Will. P.Ws.2 and 3 have signed as identifying witnesses before the Sub Registrar. The Will was registered on 17. 1993. P.Ws.2 and 3 the attestors of the Will were also identifying witnesses before the Sub Registrar. P.W.2 knows all the members of the testators family and used to meet the testator twice or thrice in a week. At the request of the testator, P.W.2 went to the house of the testator on 26. 1993. P.W.2 states that the testator was in groundfloor with his two grand children and the plaintiff was in the upstairs and after the he reached there the other witness P.W.3 came within ten minutes and after arrival of P.W.3, the testator started writing the will and completed it by 1’o clock in the afternoon. 9. P.W.3 the other attestors is a friend of the testator from the year 1973. P.W.3 also speaks in his evidence that the testator himself wrote the Will in his own handwriting and at that time himself and P.W.2 were present. P.W.3 also states that the testator has signed in all the pages of the Will including the annexures and himself and P.W.2 saw when the testator singed the will and the testator also saw P.Ws.2 and 3 putting their signature in the Will and between 10.00 am and 4.30 p.m. the Will was written and attested. 10. Counsel for the defendant pointed out that as per the evidence P.W.2 stated that the restator completed writing the Will by 1’o clock in the afternoon, but, the evidence of P.W.3 is that the Will was written between 10.00 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. and there is discrepancy in the timing. P.W.2 has stated that the writing of the Will was completed by 1’o clock. P.W.2 has stated that the writing of the Will was completed by 1’o clock. P.W.3 has stated that it was written between 10.00 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. There is no discrepancy at all in this. P.W.2 has specifically stated the time whereas P.W.3 has stated the time as between 10.00 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. There is no change in the date. The Will was executed in the year 1993. P.W.3 was examined in the year 1999. By long lapse of time, it cannot be expected that the witness would say the exact time of completion of the Will. P.W.3 has approximately stated the time as between 10.00 and 4.30 p.m. It cannot at all be stated to be discrepancy and this will not in any way establish that there is discrepancy in the evidence of the attestors with regard to valid execution and attestation of the document. P.W.3 states that the the testator was also giving several speeches during the period of execution of the Will and his memory power was good. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 clearly establishes that at the time of writing the Will, the testator was keeping good heath and he was in a sound disposing state of mind. The valid execution and attestator of the Will have been clearly spoken by P.Ws.1 to 3. The attestors have seen the testator signing the Will. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 also prove that the testator also saw the attestors attesting the Will. So, the valid execution and attestator of the Will have been clearly established in this case. 11. The principles which govern proving of a Will are well settled by the Supreme Court, in more than one case such as H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 443, Rani Purnima Devi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 567 and the decision reported in . In Shashi Kumar v. Subhadh Kumar A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 529, the Apex Court has laid down 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. In Shashi Kumar v. Subhadh Kumar A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 529, the Apex Court has laid down 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, he onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of 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 her 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. ” .12. In the instant case, the evidence of P.Ws. clearly establishes that Ex.P-2 Will was validly executed and attested by the attestors. There is no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will except the vague allegation raised by the defendant in the written statement that the Will was brought under undue influence and her oral evidence to that effect. Nothing transpires in evidence that Ex.P-2 was brought under undue influence. There is no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will except the vague allegation raised by the defendant in the written statement that the Will was brought under undue influence and her oral evidence to that effect. Nothing transpires in evidence that Ex.P-2 was brought under undue influence. D.W.1 states that during the lifetime her father did not tell anything about Ex.P-2 and at that time her father was in a disturbed mind and he could have executed the Will in a confused state of mind and her father was under influence of his daughter in law, the plaintiff. During the course of cross examination, she has stated that her father is a wise man and she does not know whether Ex.P-2 was obtained under undue influence. The plaintiff is none other than the daughter in law of the testator. She is the wife of the predeceased son of the testator. The testator provided life estate to the plaintiff and after her death, the property to pass to the hands of his grand sons, the children of the plaintiff. There is nothing in evidence to show that Ex.P-2 was got under undue influence and there is also nothing in evidence to show that Ex.P-2 is unnatural. There is not even an iota of evidence to show that Ex.P-2 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Only if it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, then, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to remove all the suspicious circumstances. The case on hand is not of such nature and there is no suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will. The testator was hale and healthy and in a sound disposing state of mind and the evidence on the side of the plaintiff clearly proves that the testator, out of his own free will, executed the Will. 13. The Will Ex.P-2 is a holograph Will. A holograph Will has been defined as one entirely written and signed by the testator. A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has held in Ajit Chandra v. Akhil Chandra A.I.R. 1960 Cal. 13. The Will Ex.P-2 is a holograph Will. A holograph Will has been defined as one entirely written and signed by the testator. A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has held in Ajit Chandra v. Akhil Chandra A.I.R. 1960 Cal. 551, that, “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.” In the case on hand, the testator has written the Will in his own handwriting. He has specifically stated in the Will that his son died on 12. 1986 and his two grandsons shall share the property after his lifetime of the plaintiff with the absolute right and life estate was given to the plaintiff. The grandsons are given absolute right over the property after the life time of the plaintiff. The testator has also stated in Ex.P-2 that his daughters viz., Kannaki and Madhavi the defendant, were provided two houses in Madras itself through his wife and through his son and therefore there is no need to provide anything to his daughters in that Will. The recital in Ex.P-2 proves that his daughters are well provided and that they are not disinherited. So, nothing unnatural appears in the Will. The testator has also written the Will with regard to movable properties i.e., the books written by him and published which the are listed and annexed to the Will and he has also stated with regard to the articles available in his house and bank deposits. The testators grandsons through his son are given right on the bank deposits and they will have to enjoy the bank deposits after the life time of the testator and they are given right to enjoy the books whose list is annexed to the Will and they are entitled to sell or reprint or publish the same and share the proceeds in equal share. Even with regard to jewels and other articles, he has made this position clear in the Will. Even with regard to jewels and other articles, he has made this position clear in the Will. In the last, the testator has stated that he was in sound state of mind, he having written the Will whole heartedly without instigation of any one has signed in the presence of the witness signed below and the Will was registered. P.Ws.2 and 3 are also the identifying witnesses. D.W.1 also admitted that P.Ws.2 and 3 were the identifying witnesses. A perusal of the Will goes to establish that the daughters of the testators were also well provided with and nothing unnatural transpires and the daughters were not disinherited. 14. Counsel for the defendant submitted that the list of books in the annexure attached to the Will that is from pages 6 to 9 of Ex.P-2 has not been signed by the attestors and this raises suspicion about the Will. 15. The testator has signed in these pages. The attestors have clearly spoken with regard to this in their evidence. P.W.2 specifically states that the typewritten pages 6 to 9 were kept ready at the time of executing the Will in which the testator has signed in the presence of himself and P.W.3. P.W.3 also states that the testator has signed in the Will from pages 1 to 9. There also the seal of the Sub-Registrar appears in token of registration of the document along with the holograph Will. The contents of the Will have been duly attested by the attestors. Only in the list of books, the attestors have not signed. As the Will has been duly attested by the attestors non-signing of the annexures containing the list of books by the attestors will not go to establish that the Will was not genuine. P.Ws.2 and 3 have clearly spoken in their evidence that even the annexure was there at the time of execution and attestation of the Will Ex.P-2. In the Will also the testator was clearly stated that he has written the Will in his handwriting and signed it mentioning the date as 26. 1993. P.Ws.2 and 3 have clearly spoken in their evidence that even the annexure was there at the time of execution and attestation of the Will Ex.P-2. In the Will also the testator was clearly stated that he has written the Will in his handwriting and signed it mentioning the date as 26. 1993. Since the annexure has also been signed by the testator and as it has been registered and P.Ws.2 and 3 have clearly spoken with regard to this in this evidence, it can be safely accepted that there is nothing unnatural in the Will and the Will is a genuine one and non signing of the annexure, pages 6 to 9 by the attestors Will not lead to suspicion with regard to the genuineness of the Will. 16. The Will was written by the testator in his own handwriting. It is the Will of the testator and under the law he has got freedom to give his property to whomsoever he likes. It has been clearly established in the instance case that the testator had free will and sound disposing state of mind. There is no expulsion of other relatives. The property is given to daughter in law and the sons of the predeceased son. The daughters have been well provided as per the recital in the Will. This Court is fully satisfied from the evidence that the Will was validly executed by the testator with capacity and there is valid attestation of the document. Being a holograph Will, it makes a great presumption in favour of the genuineness of the Will because the mind of the testator in physically writing out of his own free will is more apparent. This also proves the valid execution and attestation. There is nothing in evidence to reject the testimony of the attesting witnesses. The contentions put forth by the defendant are devoid of any merits. The valid execution and attestation have been clearly proved in this case. Hence, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to issue of letters of administration. 17. In the result, the suit is decreed. The plaintiff is entitled to probate of the Will and issue of letters of administration. No costs.