Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 38 (MAD)

J. D. Shanthi (deceased) v. M. L. Perumal

2017-01-04

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. 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. He brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are as follows:- (i) The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are the daughters and 3rd and 4th plaintiffs are the sons of one Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai, who is the 1st daughter of the deceased K.R. Lokiah Naidu. 1st respondent is the brother of the said Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai and one Mrs. Govindammal and son of the said deceased K.R. Lokiah Naidu. The 2nd respondent is the son, 3rd respondent is the daughter respectively of one Mrs. Govindammal, who is the youngest daughter of the said deceased K.R. Lokiah Naidu. The deceased Lokiah Naidu died on 01.3.1964, leaving two properties, viz. (1) The House and Land at premises no. 3, Alagiri Nagar, II Street, Vadapalani, Madras 26 and (2) the house with leasehold rights of land at premises no. 8, Egavalliamman Koil Street, George Town, Madras 600 001. (ii) The said K.B. Lokiah Naidu, left a registered Will dated 14.02.1963. As per the Will, the said Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai has life interest over the first property stated above and after her death, her issues namely, the plaintiffs herein are the beneficiaries of the said Will relating to the said property. Similarly, the said Govindammal and the 1st respondent herein have life interest over the above said second property and after their life time, their respective issues are the joint beneficiaries of the said Will relating to the above said second property. (iii) While so, 1st respondent has suppressed the said Will and filed a partition suit being O.S. No. 8024 of 1992, on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Court, Madras. After receipt of summons, when the plaintiffs searched the old trunk box, they came to know about the Will. Hence, they filed the present suit for Letters of Administration. (iv) The plaintiffs also undertakes to duly administer the property no. After receipt of summons, when the plaintiffs searched the old trunk box, they came to know about the Will. Hence, they filed the present suit for Letters of Administration. (iv) The plaintiffs also undertakes to duly administer the property no. 1 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. 3. The brief facts of the case of the 1st defendant are as follows:- The allegations that the Will was executed by the deceased Lokiah Naidu is denied. The will was the outcome of the undue influence and coercion played upon the deceased Lakiah Naidu. The property mentioned in the Will is an entirely different property. The Will must have been brought into existence by not exercising any free Will on the part of the Testator. The 1st defendant submit that the deceased Lokiah Naidu did not execute any Will nor execute any testamentary disposition of any of his properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim any exclusive rights over the said property. The Will by reason of its registration cannot claim to be a true and genuine. In fact, in the alleged Will, Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai, appears to have attested the Will. But the plaintiffs states that the said Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai was a legatee and had been made to become entitled to the legacy created in the said Will, which is not enforceable in law. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable in law. Hence, the 1st defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3.1 The brief facts of the case of the 2nd defendant are as follows:- (i) The 2nd defendant denied all the allegations and averments made in the petition. According to the 2nd defendant, he is the son of Govindammal, who is the daughter of the deceased K.R. Lokiah Naidu. Therefore, he is entitled to 1/9th share in the "A" and "B" schedule properties. According to the 2nd defendant, he is the son of Govindammal, who is the daughter of the deceased K.R. Lokiah Naidu. Therefore, he is entitled to 1/9th share in the "A" and "B" schedule properties. According to the 2nd defendant, the deceased Lokiah Naidu has not executed the alleged Will and the schedule mentioned properties are entirely different properties from the properties described in the alleged Will. Further, the plaintiffs have not chosen to take any steps to probate the alleged Will after the death of the deceased Lokiah Naidu. The present petition was filed only recently that too, after filing of the suit in O.S. No. 8024 of 1992 by the 1st defendant. Hence, the 2nd defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, on 07.3.2008, this Court framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the petitioners are entitled to grant Letters of Administration in respect of the Will of the deceased K.R. Lokiah Naidu dated 14.02.1963 as prayed for? (ii) Whether the impugned Will dated 14.02.1963 is a genuine and true one or fabricated by the petitioners for the purpose of this case as contended by the respondents? (iii) Whether the impugned Will dated 14.2.1963 was fabricated only for the purpose of defeating the rights of the respondents in the partition suit in O.S. No. 8024 of 1992 as contended by the respondents in their written statement? (iv) To what relief the petitioners are entitled? 5. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Exs.D1 to D12 were marked. The details of the documents are hereunder:- S. No. Exhibits Date Description of documents 1. P-1 10.08.1993 Original death certificate of Lokiah Naidu 2. P-2 14.02.1963 Original Will 3. P-3 06.08.1993 Original Death Certificate of Chandra Bai 4. The details of the documents are hereunder:- S. No. Exhibits Date Description of documents 1. P-1 10.08.1993 Original death certificate of Lokiah Naidu 2. P-2 14.02.1963 Original Will 3. P-3 06.08.1993 Original Death Certificate of Chandra Bai 4. P-4 (series) - Property tax receipts (2 numbers) 5 P-5 (series) - Quit Rent receipts (2 numbers) Exhibits produced on the side of the defendants:- S. No Exhibits Date Description of documents 1 D-1 27.06.2005 Xerox copy of affidavit of Shanthi filed in CMPNo.11346/2005, High Court, Madras 2 D-2 - Xerox copy of affidavit of Shanthi 3 D-3 08.09.1993 Certified true copy of written statement filed by Amudha in O.S.No.8024 /1992, City Civil Court, Madras 4 D-4 01.04.1993 Certified true copy of written statement filed by R.Venugopal in O.S.No.8024 /1992, City Civil Court, Madras 5 D-5 03.09.2004 Certified true copy of written statement filed by Amudha in O.S.No.8024 /1992, City Civil Court, Madras 6 D-6 03.03.2011 Certified true copy of pliant filed in O.S.No.8024 /1992, City Civil Court, Madras 7 D-7 20.2.1995 Property tax payment Challan 8 D-8 02.09.1996 Property tax payment Challan 9 D-9 08.09.1997 Property tax payment Challan 10 D-10 21.09.2005 Water and Sewerage tax payment receipt 11 D-11 24.11.1982 Xerox copy of the order by the Taxation Appeals Committee, Corporation of Chennai 12 D-12 01.02.1960 Certified copy of sale deed Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiffs:- P.W.1 D. Shanthi P.W.2 A. Dilli Witnesses examined on the side of the defendants:- D.W.1 Amudha D.W.2 M.L. Perumal D.W.3 Ramachandran 6. Heard, Mr. R. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and Mr. P.N. George Graham, learned counsel appearing for the defendants and perused the records. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that Ex.P2 is the original registered Will dated 14.02.1963 executed by testator K.B. Lokiah Naidu. The testator has two daughters and one son. The son is the 1st defendant herein. Other defendants are the children of the other daughters. One of the daughter, namely, Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai attested the Will as one of the Attesting witness. The testator has given reasonable distribution for all the legal heirs. It is submitted by the plaintiffs that merely because one of the attesting witness was the beneficiary, the same cannot be treated as a suspicious circumstances to attack the Will. Another attesting witness is one Veerasamy, who is the maternal uncle of the defendants. The testator has given reasonable distribution for all the legal heirs. It is submitted by the plaintiffs that merely because one of the attesting witness was the beneficiary, the same cannot be treated as a suspicious circumstances to attack the Will. Another attesting witness is one Veerasamy, who is the maternal uncle of the defendants. Since attesting witnesses died, the will has been proved by proving the signature of one of the attesting witnesses as well as the testator. Originally, the testator has two properties. He has bequeathed the said two properties to the sons and daughters and in fact, one of the attesting witness, Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai, who is the mother of the plaintiffs herein, has a life interest and the plaintiffs have vested interest. Merely because the application has been filed in the year 1993 with some delay, it cannot be a ground to infer suspicious circumstances. 8. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that the first defendant, who is the only son of the testator, is aware of the Will from the very inception. Now suddenly, by suppressing the above Will, he filed a suit in the year 1992. Only when the suit summons are served on the plaintiffs, they searched the old trunk box kept in their house and found the Will. Therefore, immediately they filed the application for grant of Letters of Administration. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that no suspicious circumstances whatsoever, brought on record to doubt the registered Will. The undue influence, fraud, and coercion has also not been established. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that two properties alone were available at the time of execution of the Will. Now the defendants cannot contend that there is an ambiguity with regard to the property bequeathed. Hence, prayed for grant of Letters of Administration. 9. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 1684 (Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Another vs. Panchanam Banerjee and Others) and the judgments of this Court reported in 2001 (3) CTC 283 (Corra Vedachalam Chetty vs. G.J. Anakiraman); 1999 (3) CTC 378 (R. Vasanthi vs. Janaki Devi) and (2008) 8 MLJ 647 (Thayammal vs. Ponnusamy). 10. 10. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that the Will was filed after a delay of 23 years and that itself create suspicious circumstances about the acceptance of the alleged Will. Another suspicious circumstances is that one of the beneficiary was attesting witness. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that in the first and second page of the Will, signature of the testator is not available. Moreover, column stating the presence of the witnesses is also not mentioned in the Will. Therefore, it is submitted that these are suspicious circumstances surrounded on the Will. 11. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that there is an ambiguity with regard to the property. The specific property mentioned in the Will is different from the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs now cannot contend that the above properties are also the subject matter of the Will. Though it is the contention of P.W.1 that he identified the signature of one of the attesting witness, her mother, in her evidence, has categorically admitted that she was only 11 years old at the time of death of testator. Therefore, her evidence with regard to the identification of the signatures of the attesting witnesses as well as the testator cannot be given much credence and the same created a serious doubt about the execution of the Will. The Will has not been proved in the manner known to law. There was no compliance to prove the execution as well as attestation. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that Ex.D4, written statement filed by father of one of the parties in O.S. No. 8024 of 1992, does not speak about the existence of the Will. It is also one of the suspicious circumstances. Hence, submitted that the alleged Will has not been established. In support of his argument, the defendants relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1147 (M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib vs. H. Venkata Sastri) as well as the judgment of this Court reported in (2016) 1 MLJ 513 (S. Vatsala vs. K.S. Mohan and Others). 12. In the light of the above, this Court has to analyse the issues framed by this Court. Issue Nos. (i) to (iii): 13. 12. In the light of the above, this Court has to analyse the issues framed by this Court. Issue Nos. (i) to (iii): 13. It is an admitted fact that the testator N.K. Lokiah Naidu had two daughters, namely, Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai and Govindammal and one son, namely, the first defendant herein. It is not in dispute that the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are daughters and 3rd and 4th plaintiffs are the sons of the deceased Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai, who is the elder daughter of the testator N.K. Lokiah Naidu. It is also not in dispute that the defendants 5 to 8 are the legal heirs of 1st plaintiff, D. Shanthi, who died during the pendency of the suit. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that originally, N.K. Lokiah Naidu executed a registered Will dated 14.02.1963, wherein he has given a life interest to elder daughter in respect of the properties situate in the Vadapalani and vested interest to the legal heirs of Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai. Similarly, 1st defendant and another daughter of the N.K. Lokiah Naidu, namely, Govindammal, the mother of the other defendants were bequeathed other properties. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that one of the attesting witness is none other than one of the daughter of the testator, namely, the said Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai and another witness is one Veerasamy, who is the brother-in-law of the testator. Since, both the attesting witnesses were died, the Will has proved in the other manner known to law. 14. It is the contention of 1st defendant that the Will may be the outcome of the undue influence and coercion played upon the deceased N.K. Lokiah Naidu by the Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai. It is the further contention of 1st defendant that there is uncertainty and ambiguity in respect of the property and hence, disputing the Will. It is the contention of 2nd defendant, who is the son of the Govindammal, another daughter of N.K. Lokiah Naidu, that the properties mentioned are the different properties from the properties described in the alleged Will and that the petition has been filed in the year 1993. The alleged Will was not executed by the testator. 15. It is the contention of 2nd defendant, who is the son of the Govindammal, another daughter of N.K. Lokiah Naidu, that the properties mentioned are the different properties from the properties described in the alleged Will and that the petition has been filed in the year 1993. The alleged Will was not executed by the testator. 15. In the background of the above pleadings, now this Court has to analyse the evidence and documents to find out whether the Will propounded by the plaintiffs has been proved in the manner known to law. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined. P.W.1 is one of the daughter of the deceased Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai, who is said to be the beneficiary under the Will. In her evidence in the chief examination, he has categorically stated that the testator, N.K. Lokiah Naidu, is her grand father, who died on 01.3.1964 and he left the registered Will dated 14.2.1963, which is marked as Ex.P2. The Will was attested by her mother Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai and Veerasamy, who is the brother in law of the grand father, N.K. Lokiah Naidu. The specific evidence of P.W.1 is that her mother died on 16.2.1976 and another witness, V.N. Veerasamy died during the year 1969. The death of the attesting witnesses spoken by P.W.1 is not even denied in the entire cross examination of P.W.1. 16. It is to be noted that one of the attesting witness in the Will, i.e. Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai, who is none other than the sister of the 1st defendant, died on 16.2.1976. To prove her death, Ex.P3 death certificate has been marked. Though the death certificate of other attesting witness, namely, V.N. Veerasamy has not been filed, his death in the year 1969 has not been disputed by other side. The relationship of Veerasamy, with the original testator is not disputed in the cross examination of P.W.1. 17. When the death of attesting witnesses has been established by deposing evidence, other mode requires to prove the Will, as contemplated under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The relationship of Veerasamy, with the original testator is not disputed in the cross examination of P.W.1. 17. When the death of attesting witnesses has been established by deposing evidence, other mode requires to prove the Will, as contemplated under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows: Proof where no attesting witness found- If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the documents purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation witness at least is in his handwriting and that the signature of the person executing the documents is in the handwriting of that person. Therefore, it is clear that to prove the hand writing of the attesting witness, the person, who has acquaintance with the signature of such attesting witness, has to be examined before the Court of law, as per Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 18. Admittedly, in this case, to prove the signature of one of the attesting witness, i.e. Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai,, P.W.1, who is the daughter of the said Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai, was examined before the Court and she has spoken in the chief examination that the signature found in the Will is that of her mother, Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai. Besides, she has also stated that she is well acquainted with the signature of her grand father and she used to see her grand father signing the rent receipts to the tenants and other papers concerned in the business transaction during her young years. From the evidence of P.W.1, it could be seen that P.W.1 identifying her mother signature found in Ex.P2, Will, is normal. Similarly she has also given explanation and reasons how she has acquainted with the signature of her grand father. Such acquaintance with signature of the family member is normal. Therefore, P.W.1 identifying the signature of one of the attesting witness and also the signature of the testator clearly established the execution of the Will. 19. It is the contention of the defendants that she was only 11 years old at the relevant time and it is highly impossible for her to remember the signature of the grand father. Therefore, P.W.1 identifying the signature of one of the attesting witness and also the signature of the testator clearly established the execution of the Will. 19. It is the contention of the defendants that she was only 11 years old at the relevant time and it is highly impossible for her to remember the signature of the grand father. It is to be noted that even assuming that P.W.1 was 11 years old at the relevant time, her evidence clearly indicate that she was a school going child at the relevant time. Even when she was examined in the year 2009, her evidence also clearly show that, she could remember the name of one of her teacher in the school, where she studied. It is needless to state that the school going children are more keen in remembering the facts than others. Therefore, merely because she was aged at 11 years at the relevant time that itself is not a ground to disbelieve her evidence. Her evidence coupled with the admission made in the written statement by the first defendant clearly prove the execution of the Will Ex.P2, by the testator. 20. Further, in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant, there is no specific denial about the Will executed by father. The signature of his father is not even denied in the entire written statement. In fact, he has pleaded in para 6 of the written statement that the alleged Will may be the outcome of the undue influence and coercion played upon his father, as he was kept in the custody of his sister Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai. Except bald allegation as stated above, there is no specific denial about the signature of his father in the Will. In fact, one of the attesting witness's signature is admitted in the written statement in para 12. It is averred in the written statement that Chandra Bai attested the Will and she has played a prominent and active part in getting the Will executed by her father. The signature of late Chadra Ammal @ Chandra Bai discloses that she has signed as an witness. The positive admission in the written statement coupled with the evidence of P.W.1, who was acquainted with the signature of the testator as well as her mother, one of the attesting witness, clearly proved the Will as required under law. 21. The signature of late Chadra Ammal @ Chandra Bai discloses that she has signed as an witness. The positive admission in the written statement coupled with the evidence of P.W.1, who was acquainted with the signature of the testator as well as her mother, one of the attesting witness, clearly proved the Will as required under law. 21. It is well settled that when both the attesting witnesses are not found, the Will can be proved only as per Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 coupled with Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In view of the evidence of P.W.1, the execution of the Will by the testator, Lokiah Naidu, is proved as per the provision of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 22. In the above background, when Ex.P2, registered Will is carefully perused, the Will is admittedly registered on 14.02.1963 in the presence of two attesting witnesses, i.e. one Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai and another person. Though the name of the second attesting witness was not mentioned in the Will, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly show that it was one Veerasamy, who is the brother-in-law of the testator, Lakiah Naidu and the same has been found only after proper verification. P.W.1's evidence in the cross examination with regard to the said Veerasamy signing the Will as one of the attesting witness is not denied in his cross examination. The identification witness, also singed in the Will in this regard. P.W.2, who is the husband of P.W.1, was examined. P.W.2, in his evidence, has clearly stated that he is aware of the affairs of the testator family and in fact, before his marriage, he was working with the original testator Lokiah Naidu. Late he married his daughter. When his evidence in the Chief examination is carefully read, he has clearly stated that he has searched about the identification witnesses address and could not locate them and their whereabouts also not known. This evidence with regard to the due search made by P.W.2 about the identification witness, has not at all denied in the entire cross examination. It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that previously, she did not know who was the other attesting witness and only recently, she came to know that Veerasamy has signed as other attesting witness. Such explanation in her evidence is also quite natural. 23. It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that previously, she did not know who was the other attesting witness and only recently, she came to know that Veerasamy has signed as other attesting witness. Such explanation in her evidence is also quite natural. 23. Admittedly, the Will itself was found in the year 1992, i.e. only after the partition suit filed by the 1st defendant in the year 1992. Therefore, the children of one of the attesting witness knowing the details of other attesting witness is not at all possible and only when the question of establishing the right arises, it is the tendency of the human to search for such witness and documents etc. Therefore, this Court is of the view that merely because earlier, the plaintiffs did not know about the other attesting witness is not a ground to discard their evidence in entirety. As already discussed, the execution of the Will has been proved by the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with the admission of the 1st defendant in the written statement. 24. When the Will is carefully perused, it is seen that the testator has categorically stated that he has two properties in Chennai. One situate at Bhakthavatchalam colony in the back side of Vadapalani Andavar Temple, Kodambakkam, madras, which was purchased from one Duraisami Naicker of Puliyur Village and after purchasing the same, he constructed three rooms in the said property. He was also given reasons in the Will for not allotting this property to the 1st defendant. The reason he has stated is that since the 1st defendant, his son, wanted to stay separately along with his wife, and as per his request, he was given entire business worth about 10,000/- already. Besides he has also bequeathed the other property situate in the Ekavalli Amman Koil Lane to the 1st defendant and another daughter, Govindammal, worth about Rs.12,000/-. From the recitals of the Will, the intention of the testator can be easily gathered and that, he made equal distribution to all the legal heirs. In fact, the recitals clearly show that the 1st defendant was given his business worth about Rs.10,000/- at the relevant time in the year 1963. The Will clearly show the intention of the testator to distribute the properties equally to all the legal heirs. 25. From the above Will, this Court is unable to find any suspicious circumstances. In fact, the recitals clearly show that the 1st defendant was given his business worth about Rs.10,000/- at the relevant time in the year 1963. The Will clearly show the intention of the testator to distribute the properties equally to all the legal heirs. 25. From the above Will, this Court is unable to find any suspicious circumstances. It is further to be noted that the testator has signed the Will only in the last page. First two pages are not signed. Merely because 1st and 2nd pages are not signed by the testator, that itself is not a ground to invalid the registered Will, which is otherwise proved in the manner known to law. It is the contention of the defendants that the property described in the Will is totally different than the property described in the schedule. It is not the case of the defendants that except two of the aforesaid properties, the testator had some other property. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the defendants in this regard. 26. It is the admitted case of the parties that the testator had two properties alone at the time of execution of the Will. While so, the defendants have now taken advantage about the change of street name in one of the properties. But the fact remains that the property bequeathed to Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai situate in Vadapalani. This fact is not at all disputed. The testator also clearly stated in his Will that the above property has been purchased from one Duraisamy Naicker and others. In this regard, Ex.D12 filed by the defendants themselves proved the fact that the testator has purchased the property situate in Vadapalani from Duriasamy Naciker and others. The description of the property is not disputed. The property is situate in the Puliyur Village, which has been clearly mentioned. It is to be noted that in the year 1963, the above property is known as Bhakthavatchalam street. Now the above street has been changed as Alagiri Nagar, Vadapalani. It is quite normal that change of street normally took place due to passage of time. Merely because there was a change in the street name, it cannot be contended by the defendants that there is an ambiguity in the Will. 27. Absolutely, there is no ambiguity found in the Will with regard to the description of the property. It is quite normal that change of street normally took place due to passage of time. Merely because there was a change in the street name, it cannot be contended by the defendants that there is an ambiguity in the Will. 27. Absolutely, there is no ambiguity found in the Will with regard to the description of the property. Survey No. and village name are found to be one and the same. Merely because the street name is changed subsequently, that too, after a lapse of 40 years, it cannot be a ground to infer that there is an ambiguity in the Will with regard to the property. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that there is an ambiguity cannot be countenanced. 28. Admittedly, as per the Will, Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai was given life interest in respect of "B" schedule property and vested remainders to all the legal heirs. Of course, the Chandra Bai was the attesting witness. Merely because the beneficiary has attested the Will cannot be a ground for suspecting the Will. Unless undue influence, coercion or fraud has been established, mere signing as an attesting witness by one of the beneficiary, the same cannot be a suspicious circumstances. In the judgment reported in 2009 (11) SCC 1 (Rursingh (D) Rep. by LRs. and Another vs. Bachan Kaur), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely because the beneficiary attested the Will, the same cannot be ground to infer suspicious circumstances. D.W.2's, the 1st defendant, in his evidence in the cross examination, has clearly admitted that there is no evidence to show that his father was suffering from heart ailment at the relevant period. He has also admitted that except two houses, his father did not own any other property. D.W.2 has also admitted that he has never paid tax for Vadapalani property and he has also admitted that after the death of his father, he renovated the property situate at Ekavalli Amman Koil Lane. He has also admitted the signature of the attesting witness in the Will. The fact remains that the Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai alone was residing in the property along with Loka Naikh and thereafter the plaintiffs are paying the taxes regularly. 29. If really the Will was not there, being the only son of the testator, nothing prevented the first defendant from paying taxes to "B" schedule property. The fact remains that the Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai alone was residing in the property along with Loka Naikh and thereafter the plaintiffs are paying the taxes regularly. 29. If really the Will was not there, being the only son of the testator, nothing prevented the first defendant from paying taxes to "B" schedule property. His evidence clearly indicate that he was never in possession of "B" schedule property and paid taxes. Exs.D8 to D10 filed by the defendants also proved the fact that he had paid taxes only in respect of the property bequeathed to him under the Will. All these facts clearly proved that the Will was acted upon by the parties. Only taking advantage of the fact that the Will has not been proved in the Court for granting Letters of Administration all these years, the 1st defendant has filed the suit for partition in the year 1992. Therefore, this Court is of the view that merely because there was a delay in approaching the Court to get the Letters of Administration on the basis of the registered Will, which is not even surrounded with any suspicious circumstances, delay itself cannot be a ground to reject the Will, which is otherwise proved properly before the Court. 30. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai. The said Chandra Ammal @ Chandra Bai died in the year 1976. As per the Will, she was given only life interest. Therefore, the legal heirs, who are in young age at the relevant time, may not be in a position to know the legal obligation and requirement of law at the relevant time to get the Will proved before the Court of law. Therefore, mere delay in approaching the Court cannot be a ground to non suit the plaintiff, when the Will has been proved in the Court of law. 31. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition made in the Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the defendants. But the fact remains that the Will in this case has been proved as per Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 since the attesting witnesses were not available. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that Section 63 (c) has to be complied in proving of the Will is not applicable to the facts of the present case. But the fact remains that the Will in this case has been proved as per Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 since the attesting witnesses were not available. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that Section 63 (c) has to be complied in proving of the Will is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the issues are answered. 32. In the result:- (i) The suit is decreed. (ii) The Letters of Administration, having the effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu, shall be issued in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the property bequeathed to them in the Will dated 14.2.1963. (iii) The plaintiffs are directed to duly administer the estate of the deceased. (iv) The plaintiffs shall execute a security bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in favour of the Assistant Registrar (O.S-II), High Court, Madras. (v) The plaintiffs are further directed to render true and correct accounts once in a year. (vi) No costs.