JUDGMENT : The petition originally filed for the grant of Letters of Administration has been converted as suit in view of the caveat filed by the defendants herein. 2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs' case may be stated as follows: (i) The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of Mrs. K. Saroja, wife of late R. Kothandaraman Pillai, died on 11.07.2007, who is the testatrix. The said K. Saroja left a Will dated 14.07.2006 bequeathing the suit property in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the only beneficiaries under the said will. The deceased K. Saroja had not mentioned any executor of the Will in the Will executed by her. The deceased K. Saroja has left behind her plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2 to succeed to her estate. (ii) Since the 1st plaintiff, viz., K. Iyeswaran, expired on 07.09.2013, plaintiffs 3 to 5 were brought on record as his legal heirs. (iii) The amount of assets which is likely to come into the plaintiffs' hands does not exceed in the aggregate sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and the net amount of the said assets is Rs.6,98,500/-. There is no next of kin or other person interested to be impleaded in the petition for grant of probate. The plaintiffs undertakes to duly administer the property and credits of the deceased in any way concerned in the Will by paying first her debts and then the legacies therein bequeathed so far as the assets will extend and to make a full and true inventory thereof and exhibits the same to the Court within six months from the date of grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed to the plaintiffs and also to tender to this court a true account of the said property and credits within one year from the said date. (iv) The plaintiffs state that except the immovable property mentioned in the Affidavit of Assets, and the Letters of Administration with the Will annexed is only in respect of the immovable property mentioned in the Affidavit of Assets. Further, there are no other properties and credits other than what is specified in the Affidavit of Assets. (iv) The plaintiffs state that except the immovable property mentioned in the Affidavit of Assets, and the Letters of Administration with the Will annexed is only in respect of the immovable property mentioned in the Affidavit of Assets. Further, there are no other properties and credits other than what is specified in the Affidavit of Assets. The petitioner also submits no application has been made to any other District Court or delegate or to any other High Court for probate of any Will of the said deceased or Letters of Administration with or without the Will annexed to her property and credits. Hence, the suit is filed for grant of Letters of Administration for administering the property covered under the Will of K. Saroja. 3. The brief facts of the defendants' case may be stated as follows:- (i) The defendants, denying the allegations contained in the plaint, submitted that the deceased testatrix is the mother of the defendants and the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are their brothers. According to them, the Will is not a genuine one and it was brought out by playing fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence by the plaintiffs. (ii) The defendants state that the 2nd defendant strained her relationship with her mother, since she married a person of her own choice. She filed a suit for partition claiming 1/4th share in the property and the said suit was dismissed. Thereafter, their mother gave her share of jewellery and Rs.2,00,000/-, since their mother did not perform her wedding and the 2nd defendant daughter's engagement was also performed in the house of the testatrix as per her wish. (iii) The defendants submits that testatrix fell seriously ill and hence, the 2nd defendant had admitted her in Vijaya Hospital, Vadapalani and she was diagnosed with cancer. The second defendant only had taken care of their mother and the 1st defendant also helped and shared in serving their mother. Neither the plaintiffs nor their wives stayed in the Hospital. (iv) The defendants submits that the Will alleged to have been executed by the testatrix during her critical illness, while she was in Hospital. According to them, the Will was executed by that time and hence, the Will was not genuine one. Neither the plaintiffs nor their wives stayed in the Hospital. (iv) The defendants submits that the Will alleged to have been executed by the testatrix during her critical illness, while she was in Hospital. According to them, the Will was executed by that time and hence, the Will was not genuine one. Further, in the Will it has not been stated that she executed her last Will in a sound and disposing state of mind and there is no whisper about the daughters/defendants. The non-mentioning of the daughters/ defendants would prove that their mother was not in a sound and disposing state of mind. Further, the plaintiffs have grossly undervalued the property at Rs.7,00,000/- when the property being in a prime locality and would easily fetch more than 3 crores of rupees. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed: - (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 14.07.2006 executed by the Testatrix Mrs. K. Saroja? (2) Whether the Will said to have been executed by the testatrix is not a genuine Will as alleged by the defendants? (3) Whether the Will said to have been executed by the testatrix was under fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence as alleged by the defendants? (4) Whether the testatrix was not in a sound state of mind at the time of executing the Will as alleged by the defendants? (5) To what reliefs the parties are entitled? 5. On the side of the plaintiffs P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the defendants D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. The details of the documents are here under: Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiffs: S. No. Exhibits Date Description of documents 1. P-1 - Death Certificate of Mrs. K. Saroja 2. P-2 14/07/2006 Registered Original Will 3. P-3 - Legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar 4. P-4 (series) 25/05/2003 Agreement entered into between plaintiffs mother on one part and the second defendant her husband and daughter on the other part 5. P-5 (series) 19/07/2006 Discharge summary of plaintiff's mother 6. P-6 13/09/2006 Discharge summary of plaintiff's mother 7. P-7 - Marriage invitation of the second defendants' daughter 8. P-4 (series) 25/05/2003 Agreement entered into between plaintiffs mother on one part and the second defendant her husband and daughter on the other part 5. P-5 (series) 19/07/2006 Discharge summary of plaintiff's mother 6. P-6 13/09/2006 Discharge summary of plaintiff's mother 7. P-7 - Marriage invitation of the second defendants' daughter 8. P-8 18/09/1989 Certified copy of the unregistered Will executed by plaintiff' mother Exhibits produced on the side of the defendants: S. No. Exhibits Date Description of documents 1. D-1 - Photo album 2. D-2 - Negatives of photo Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiffs: P.W.1. - K. Janakaraja P.W.2. - R. Kumarasami P.W.3. - S.P. Sampath Witnesses examined on the side of the defendants D.W.1 - Iyeswaryam 5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are sons and the defendants are the daughters of the deceased K. Saroja. The deceased K. Saroja left the Will dated 14.7.2006 bequeathing the entire properties to her sons. The Will has been proved in the manner known to law. P.W.3, attesting witness, clearly spoken about the execution and attestation of the Will. P.W.2 also spoken about the state of mind of the testatrix at the time of execution of the Will. Merely because, the testatrix was admitted in the hospital for some time, for minor illness, the defendants cannot contend that the testatrix has no testamentary capacity to execute the Will. The allegations of fraud and misrepresentation and undue influence, as pleaded by the defendants have not been established. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the suit filed by the 2nd defendant for partition has already been dismissed. In fact, the deceased Saroja was admitted in the hospital only for asthma. The contention of the defendants that testatrix was treated for cancer, is found to be false as per the discharge summary. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the Will has been registered properly and the testatrix has signed the Will in the presence of attesting witnesses. The evidence of the attesting witnesses clearly prove the execution and attestation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that mere dis-inheritance of some of the legal heirs in the Will is not a ground to non suit the Will. The intention of the testatrix was very clear. The evidence of the attesting witnesses clearly prove the execution and attestation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that mere dis-inheritance of some of the legal heirs in the Will is not a ground to non suit the Will. The intention of the testatrix was very clear. Further, the reason for disinheriting the daughters was also proved by the evidence of P.W.1 herself. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are entitled to Letters of Administration. 6. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (5) CTC 318 (J. MATHEW V. LEELA JOSEPH) as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1995) 4 SCC 459 (RABINDRANATH MUKHERJEE V. PANCHANAN BANERJEE AND OTHERS) and (2012) 4 SCC 387 (MAHESHKUMAR V. VINOD KUMAR). 7. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that the suspicious is very much inherent in the transaction itself. The manner in which, the Will was registered by the ill-lady, who was admitted in the hospital and taking treatment in ICU for serious ailments, creates serious doubt about the execution of the Will. The testatrix's signature found in each page differs and shaky. Admittedly, the testatrix was in the hospital as in-Patient at the time of the alleged execution of the Will. There is no endorsement of the Doctor to prove that the testatrix was conscious and capacity to understand the nature of things. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants that the Discharge Summary shows that the testatrix was discharged in the hospital only on 19.7.2006 whereas the Will was registered on 14.07.2006, which create serious doubt about the execution of the Will. The Discharge Summary filed by the plaintiffs itself is sufficient to show that the Will came into existence only in suspicious circumstances. It is submitted that all the daughters were excluded from allotting share. Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 create suspicious doubt about the Will. The evidence of P.W.3, attesting witness also clinchingly prove the fact that the entire Will was prepared in a hasty manner. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants that the Will has not been proved in the manner known to law. Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 create suspicious doubt about the Will. The evidence of P.W.3, attesting witness also clinchingly prove the fact that the entire Will was prepared in a hasty manner. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants that the Will has not been proved in the manner known to law. Hence, the learned counsel for the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. Issue Nos.2 to 4: 8. The relationship between the parties are not in dispute. The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are the sons and the 1st and 2nd defendants are the daughters of the deceased K. Saroja. As the 1st plaintiff died, his legal heirs were impleaed as plaintiffs 3 to 5. The plaintiffs propounded the Will dated 14.07.2006 said to have been executed by Mrs. K. Saroja, the mother of the defendants and the plaintiffs 1 and 2 while in sound and disposing state of mind, bequeathing the properties in favour of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs seek Letters of Administration. 9. The 1st and 2nd defendants filed a written statements taking similar defence that the Will is not a genuine and it was brought out by playing fraud and misrepresentation and undue influence by the plaintiffs. It is the contention of the defendants that testatrix was taking treatment at Vijaya Hospital, Vadapalani at the relevant time for her illness and after discharge, she survived only for few months. During treatment in the hospital, she was mostly under medication, which was sedative in order to reduce the sufferings. She was diagnosed for cancer. Hence, it is the contention of the defendants' counsel that the Will is not a genuine and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 10. It is well settled that initial burden is always on the propounder to prove the Will by examining the attesting witnesses. It is for the propounder to prove the execution and attestation besides proving the testamentary capacity of the testator/testatrix at the relevant time. P.W.1, the second plaintiff has given evidence supporting the execution of the Will and has stated that when testatrix was in a sound and disposing state of mind, she executed the Will on 14.07.2006. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that on 14.7.2006, the Will was read and explained in Tamil to testatrix. At the time of execution of the Will, he and P.W.2, Kumarasami, were present. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that on 14.7.2006, the Will was read and explained in Tamil to testatrix. At the time of execution of the Will, he and P.W.2, Kumarasami, were present. It is stated that his mother, has signed Will in all pages in the presence of the witnesses. The evidence of P.W.1, clearly show that at the time of explaining the contents of the Will to the testatrix, he and P.W.2 alone were present. 11. P.W.3 one Mr. Sampath, who was one of the attesting witness, in his evidence in the chief examination has stated that Saroja was not acquainted with English knowledge and the contents of the Will were read in Tamil and she was well acquainted and signed the said Will in the Sub Registrar office. According to P.W.3, attesting witness, the Will was signed by the testatrix in the presence of himself and another attesting witness, one Pannerselvam, while she was in a sound and disposing state of mind. The contents of the Will was also properly explained by P.W.2 Kumarasami, to the testatrix and she fully understood the contents and signed the Will in their presence. Attesting witnesses also signed in the presence of the testatrix. The testatrix also seen the attesting witnesses while they were signing in the Will. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were carefully read together, it appears as if Will has been proved as required under law. 12. Whereas the entire transaction and more particularly, the manner in which the Will was executed and registered in the evening hours at the Registrar Office, creates serious doubt about the execution of the Will by testatrix in sound disposing state of mind. Therefore, this Court merely on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 cannot decide the validity of the Will, when inherent doubt about the transaction itself very much present from the beginning. 13. In the light of the above, I have to analyse the evidence to find out whether the propounder has discharged the initial burden in proving the testamentary capacity of testatrix. When Ex.P2, the Will, said to have been executed by Saroja, was carefully analysed, it is seen that the same was typed in English and verified by one Advocate Noorjahan, who is having office at Saligramam, Chennai. When Ex.P2, the Will, said to have been executed by Saroja, was carefully analysed, it is seen that the same was typed in English and verified by one Advocate Noorjahan, who is having office at Saligramam, Chennai. The entire recitals from the beginning to end, does not show any ailment of the testatrix. Though P.W.3, one of the attesting witness asserted in his evidence in the Chief examination that testatrix has signed the Will, while she was in good state of mind, the manner in which, the signature of the testatrix was obtained in all pages of the Will, shows that much hurriedness has been shown in getting the signature of the Will in every page. It is to be noted that 'x' Mark has been put indicating the place where the testatrix should sign. It is further to be noted that in the last page of the Will signature has been obtained in the place meant for the witnesses. The testatrix has not put her signature in the place normally left for signature of executant of document. Even though these minor discrepancies may not create a serious doubt about the Will, the manner in which the signatures were obtained in the Will, create suspicious over the Will. Especially, when "x" mark put before the signature of the testatrix is taken into consideration with the available evidence on record, this Court can easily come to the conclusion that the signature has been obtained in a hurried manner. 14. Admittedly, the testatrix was taking treatment in the hospital for certain ailment at the relevant time. When Discharge Summary, filed by the plaintiffs themselves and exhibited as Ex.P5 was carefully perused, it is seen that the testatrix was admitted in the Vijaya Hospital on 10.7.2006 and she was discharged from the hospital only on 19.07.2006. The history recorded by the Doctors reveals that the testatrix, who was a known asthmatic, was admitted with the complaints of burning pain all over the chest abdomen with decreased appetite, belching and regurgitation of food particles and occasional vomiting. The Discharge Summary further reveals that she was admitted in the casualty. Even during her stay in the hospital, she developed left side chest pain and was shifted to casualty and investigations were done. Thereafter, she was shifted to normal ward. The Discharge Summary further reveals that she was admitted in the casualty. Even during her stay in the hospital, she developed left side chest pain and was shifted to casualty and investigations were done. Thereafter, she was shifted to normal ward. The Gastroenterologist's opinion found in the Discharge Summary clearly shows that he was diagnosed as depression with monilial oesophagitis. Furthermore, the Discharge summary clearly indicate that testatrix was suffering from depression at the relevant time. 15. It is to be noted that the Discharge Summary does not reveal the fact that how many days, the testatrix was in the ICU. The evidence of PW.1 in the cross-examination in this regard, clearly show that his mother, i.e., testatrix, was in the ICU for three days from the date of admission. Admittedly, the testatrix was admitted in the hospital on 10.7.2006. The evidence of P.W.1 in the cross-examination indicate that his mother went to Registrar Office from the hospital directly and she was in ward No.309 at the relevant time. Though it is stated by the plaintiffs that the testatrix was taken to the Registrar Office with the permission of the Doctor, no evidence whatsoever, available to that effect. Whereas the Discharge Summary clearly indicate that the testatrix was in the hospital from 10.7.2016 to 19.07.2006. The Discharge Summary further discloses that the testatrix was diagnosed for depression and various investigations were done. Further, it discloses that she was shifted to the casualty for chest pain etc. That being the case, on the next day, allowing the testatrix, who was taking treatment as In-Patient in the hospital, to the Registrar Office by the Doctors is unbelievable and improbable. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs in that regard that only the Doctors gave permission to take the testatrix to the Registrar Office is highly improbable and cannot be countenanced. Apart from that, no certificate whatsoever, obtained from the Doctor to show that testatrix was in sound disposing state of mind at the relevant time. Whereas, the Discharge Summary clearly show that the testatrix was suffering from depression. 16. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the meaning given in the various Dictionary for the word "depression" As per the Oxford dictionary the word "depression" means : "a feeling of unhappiness that lasts for a long time. Whereas, the Discharge Summary clearly show that the testatrix was suffering from depression. 16. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the meaning given in the various Dictionary for the word "depression" As per the Oxford dictionary the word "depression" means : "a feeling of unhappiness that lasts for a long time. Depression can be a medical condition and my have physical signs" As per Webstar dictionary, the word "depression" means: ".. .. .. A mental state characterized by a pessimistic sense of inadequacy and a despondent lack of activity = elation Sad feelings of gloom and inadequacy" A state of depression and anhedonia so severe as to require clinical intervention = clinical depression, depressive disorder" From the above meanings, it is clear that depression relates to psycological problem. Therefore, when the person is suffering depression, definitely he/she cannot able to understand the nature of things. Since the testatrix was suffering from depression, it cannot be concluded that the testatrix was sound state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. 17. In this context, it is useful to refer Section 12 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, which reads as follows: "What is a sound mind for the purposes of contracting: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract, if at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests. A person who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally of sound mind, may make a contract when he is of sound mind. A person who is usually of sound mind, but occasionally of unsound mind, may not make a contract when he is of unsound mind." From the above section, it is clear that to infer the sound mind of the person, there must be an evidence to show his/her capability of understanding the nature of things and able to make rational judgment about his/her interest. 18. During the argument, when this Court pointed out the medical history about the "depression", to clarify it, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs filed a memo dated 22.12.2016 enclosing the Medical Certificate dated 21.12.2016 signed by one Dr. S. Gopal, to the effect that the testatrix has mind related depression due to severe pain in abdomen and not endogenous depression. During the argument, when this Court pointed out the medical history about the "depression", to clarify it, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs filed a memo dated 22.12.2016 enclosing the Medical Certificate dated 21.12.2016 signed by one Dr. S. Gopal, to the effect that the testatrix has mind related depression due to severe pain in abdomen and not endogenous depression. Though the medical certificate has been produced, the same cannot be given credence as the author of the said certificate has not been examined before the Court. 19. Admittedly, in this case, the testatrix was admitted in the hospital from 10.7.2006 to 19.07.2006. Her state of mind was not spoken by the Medical Officer, who treated the patient at the relevant time. Further, suddenly she going to the Registrar Office, when she was taking treatment, that too, when she was having serious ailment, like chest pain etc., as found in the Discharge Summary, is highly impossible. The evidence of P.W.1, the cross-examination, clearly show that he accompanied the testatrix when she was taken to the Registrar Office. These facts would clearly prove the prominent role played by P.W.1. in getting the documents registered. 20. With the above background, when the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 is analysed, they stated in unison that it is clear that the contents of the Will were explained to testatrix by P.W.2, Kumaraswamy, who is none other than the son-in-law of the testatrix. According to P.W.1, Kumaraswamy, drafted the Will through the Advocate, by name, Noorjahan. At the time of explaining the contents to the testatrix by Kumaraswamy, P.W.1 was present. In this regard, when evidence of P.W.2 is carefully perused, he has stated that the contents of the Will was read over to the testatrix. P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that on 13.07.2006, when he went to the hospital to enquire about the health of the testatrix, she told him to collect the draft Will from the Advocate Noorjahan. Accordingly, P.W.2 has collected the draft will and explained the contents to her. But the said statement is falsified when his admission in the cross-examination is analysed. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that he do not know the Advocate Noorjahan, personally. Further he has also stated that the said Advocate office situate near Virugambakkam Sub-Registrar Office. Accordingly, P.W.2 has collected the draft will and explained the contents to her. But the said statement is falsified when his admission in the cross-examination is analysed. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that he do not know the Advocate Noorjahan, personally. Further he has also stated that the said Advocate office situate near Virugambakkam Sub-Registrar Office. He do not know the Advocate Noorjahan, but, however, he took the testatrix Saroja on prior occasion to the office of the said Advocate Noorjahan. His evidence is falsified when Ex.P2 Will is perused, wherein the Advocate's office address has been given as Saligramam. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 that he went to the Advocate office at Virugambakkam, is highly improbable and unreliable as it creates doubt about the drafting of the Will. 21. Further, P.W.2, in the cross-examination, has admitted that he went to the Advocate Office at 11 a.m. in the morning hours and collected the draft Will and explained the contents of the Will to the testatrix in the hospital and thereafter he made corrections and again came to the hospital by 2.30 p.m. He has also admitted in his evidence that at the time of explaining the contents of the Will to the testatrix, nobody was present in the hospital. His evidence is highly inconsistent with the evidence of P.W.1, wherein he has stated that P.W.2 was also present. If really, P.W.2 was present, nothing prevented him from signing the documents, as one of the attesting witnesses in the Will. His evidence also indicate that the testatrix was taken to the Registrar Office in the evening hours. According to P.W.2, only on his instructions, attesting witnesses came to the Registrar Office. P.W.1 and P.W.2, in their evidence had categorically stated that the contents of the Will were read over to the testatrix in the hospital whereas P.W.3, one of the attesting witness, in his evidence has stated that the contents of the Will were read over to the testatrix only in the Registrar Office in their presence. These contradictory evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 creates serious doubt about the execution of the Will by the testatrix in sound disposing state of mind. When P.W.2 and P.W.3 evidences were carefully perused, they all related to one another. These contradictory evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 creates serious doubt about the execution of the Will by the testatrix in sound disposing state of mind. When P.W.2 and P.W.3 evidences were carefully perused, they all related to one another. His evidence also show that he reached the Sub-Registrar Office 4.45 p.m., in the evening and entire transaction completed by 5.30 p.m. These facts merely create a serious doubt about the testamentary capacity of Saroja at the relevant time. 22. As already pointed out the discrepancy in getting the signature of the testatrix in the Will in all the pages and also the time of the registration of the Will clearly probabilise the fact that the Will has been registered in the evening hours in a hasty manner. Further the alleged draft Will, which was collected from the Advocate to explain the contents of the testatrix has not seen the light of the day. Therefore, merely because the execution and attestation has been proved as per the requirement of law by examining the attesting witnesses, that itself cannot be a ground to infer the genuineness of the Will, more particularly, when the doubt is inherent in the transaction itself. 23. An attempt was made by the plaintiffs' counsel to show that the testatrix has already executed the Will in the year 1996 by excluding the daughters, therefore, excluding the daughters in the subsequent Will is not a suspicious circumstances. Of course, it is true that mere dis-inheritance of some of the natural heirs cannot be treated as a suspicious circumstances. Whereas in this case, the testamentary capacity of the testatrix is very much doubtful. She was all along in the hospital even after the execution of the Will, Ex.P2 and she was discharged from the hospital only on 19.07.2006. Further, the prominent role played by P.W.1 to P.W.3, who are relatives of the testatrix, in all aspects, i.e., from collecting the so called draft of the Will till getting it registered in the evening hours by taking the testatrix from the hospital, raised suspicious circumstances about the testamentary capacity of the testatrix. Particularly, the Doctors have not been examined to show that testatrix was in sound state of mind at the relevant time. 24. Particularly, the Doctors have not been examined to show that testatrix was in sound state of mind at the relevant time. 24. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that second defendant had executed an agreement Ex.P4 with her mother, not to claim any share in the property. When Ex.P4 is read, though there were some provisions given to the second defendant by his mother, the agreement, in fact, recorded the promise given by the second defendant. It seems that the agreement, restrains the second defendant from filing any case before the Court of law. Such agreement restraining the persons to establish his/her right before the Court of law is against the public policy and the same cannot be given any effect to. 25. Be that as it may, when one person seeks right on the basis of the last Will and testament, it is for him/her to establish that the testament was made voluntarily by the testator/testatrix while in sound state of mind. When the sound state of mind has not been established at the relevant time, no sanctity whatsoever can be attached to such a document. 26. In this case, the plaintiffs miserably failed to establish the genuineness of the Will executed by the testatrix. Therefore, merely because Ex.P2, Will, was registered, its genuinity cannot be inferred. Though official acts presumes to be done properly by the Sub-Registrar, the same is not sufficient to infer the genuineness of the Registered Will by the testatrix unless the testamentary capacity was proved before the Court of Law. 27. Insofar as the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs are concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition laid down there. In all the judgments principles are one and the same. But in the instant case, testamentary capacity of the testatrix has not been established. Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs will not help them in any way in appreciating evidence in the given case. Issue No.1: 28. In view of the discussions held in issue Nos.3 and 4, the plaintiffs are not entitled to Letters of Administration. 29. In the result, the suit is dismissed. However, considering the relationship between the parties, there shall be no order as to costs.

K. Iyeswaran (since deceased) v. G. Iyeswarialakshmi