ORDER : H.P. Sandesh, J. This petition is filed under Section 222, 276, 300 and Chapter IV of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Probate and Administration Matters, 1964 praying this Court to allow first petitioner to prove the last Will and Testament dated 19.08.2016 of late A K Ravindranath Nedungadi and also grant probate in favour of petitioner No.1 in respect of the said Will and grant such other relief as this Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners . 3. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking grant of probate of the last Will and Testament dated 19.08.2016 of late Ayani Kurussi Ravindranath Nedungadi alias A K Ravindranath Nedungadi S/o late A K P Nedungadi. It is stated that the testator professed Hindu religion and was residing in Bengaluru city and the testator died on 29.01.2022. The testator was a resident of and domiciled at Flat No.103, Delphi-3, Prestige Acropolis, 20 Hosur Road, Bengaluru. 4. The testator is survived by his widow Mrs. Suma Nedungadi i.e, petitioner No.1 and the executrix in terms of the Will. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are his children and petitioner No.4 is the mother of the testator and the petitioners are the only Class-I legal heirs of the testator. 5. The testator at the time of the execution of the Will was in a sound and disposing state of mind. The testator was not suffering from any infirmities affecting his mental ability and power of judgment at the time of execution of the said Will. The said Will was duly executed by the testator in the presence of two attesting witnesses namely, Mr. V S Venkataraman and Ms. Mimi Partha Sarathy and the affidavits of the said attesting witnesses confirming the due execution of the Will also produced along with this petition. The petitioners have stated in this petition that the value of the estate of the testator is Rs.2,87,59,000/- and the petitioners have not filed any other petition before any other Courts of law for the same cause of action. 6. It is contended that petitioner No.1 being the executrix named in the Will is entitled to seek grant of probate of the Will and administer the estate of the testator in terms thereof. 6. It is contended that petitioner No.1 being the executrix named in the Will is entitled to seek grant of probate of the Will and administer the estate of the testator in terms thereof. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 undertakes to administer the estate of the testator and make a full and true inventory of his assets and exhibit the same after the grant of probate and also to render the true accounts of the estate after having granted the probate. 7. In pursuance of this petition, this Court raised the objection regarding petitioner No.4 since petitioner No.4 is not the beneficiary under the Will. The counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.4 is the mother of the testator and being the Class-I heir, she has been arrayed as a party in the petition even though her name is not mentioned in the Will and the said submission is taken on record. 8. The petitioners have also sought for citation by way of paper publication in English daily newspaper ‘The Hindu’, Bengaluru, Palakkad, Pune editions and also in Kannada daily newspaper ‘Udayavani’, Bengaluru edition and also filed an application for dispensation of notice against the Deputy Commissioner. As the learned counsel has undertaken to pay the maximum Court Fee, the said application was allowed and also permitted to take out the paper publication as sought. Accordingly, paper publication in ‘The Hindu’ and ‘Udayavani’ as sought are placed on record and the same is accepted and none appears claiming any interest in respect of the Will. Hence, this Court directed to list the matter before the Registrar (Computers) on 05.08.2024 to record the evidence. Accordingly, the petitioners examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked the document of Will as Ex.P1 through PW1 and also signature of the testator as well as the signatures of two attesting witnesses are marked as Ex.P1(a) to (c). So also examined another attesting witness as PW2 and she identified her signature at the Will which was already marked as Ex.P1(c) and she also identifies the signature of the testator as well as signature of another witness which was already marked as Ex.P1(a) and (b). So also examined another attesting witness as PW2 and she identified her signature at the Will which was already marked as Ex.P1(c) and she also identifies the signature of the testator as well as signature of another witness which was already marked as Ex.P1(a) and (b). Petitioner No.1 is examined as PW3 wherein she deposed about the Will executed by her husband and death certification of her husband and she also deposed issuance of citation in English daily newspaper ‘The Hindu’, Bengaluru edition which is marked as Ex.P3 and citation is marked as Ex.P3(a) as well as ‘The Hindu’ Kochi edition which is marked as Ex.P4 and citation is marked as Ex.P4(a) and so also the Mumbai edition is marked as Ex.P5 and citation is marked as Ex.P5(a) and the citation issued in the Kannada daily newspaper ‘Udayavani’ Bengaluru edition is marked as Ex.P6 and citation is marked as Ex.P6(a). 9. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners brought to notice of this Court marking of the original Will as Ex.P1 which is kept in safe custody and the death certificate of testator which is marked as Ex.P2 as well as examination of two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 to prove the Will and prayed this Court to grant the probate as sought. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also on perusal of the material on record, the point that would raise for consideration of this petition is: 1. Whether petitioner No.1 has made out a ground to grant the probate as sought in respect of the last Will and Testament dated 19.08.2016 of late Ayani Kurussi Ravindranath Negungadi which is marked at Ex.P1? 2. What order? Point No.1: 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the last Will and Testament dated 19.08.2016 was executed by the testator late Ayani Kurussi Ravindranath Negungadi and the same is marked as Ex.P1. The petitioners have also relied upon the document of Ex.P2 – death certificate of the testator. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the last Will and Testament dated 19.08.2016 was executed by the testator late Ayani Kurussi Ravindranath Negungadi and the same is marked as Ex.P1. The petitioners have also relied upon the document of Ex.P2 – death certificate of the testator. Having perused the last Will and Testament, it discloses that the testator has mentioned that he has got movable and immovable properties and the same are acquired out of his own funds and it is also stated that in terms of the Will, all his movable and immovable properties other than those specified in Clause 4 for which he has made separate provision to his wife i.e., petitioner No.1 and if she pre-deceases him, equally to his children and details are given in Clauses 4 and 5 that four lockers which he hold jointly with his wife and upon his death, his wife will have the right to deal with the lockers and its contents in the manner she deems fit and also a provision is made that if his wife pre- deceased him, then all the movable and immovable properties that his wife is entitled to under this Will shall stand bequeathed to his children equally and details are also given. It is important to note that in paragraph 7, he appointed his wife i.e., petitioner No.1 to be the executor of his Will and if she pre-deceases him, his son and if he pre-deceases him, his daughter. If all of them pre-deceases him, his Auditor Mr. Vishnu Murthy of Vishnu Ram and Company shall be the executor and if he pre-deceases him, any of the partners of Vishnu Ram and Company shall be the executor. 12. Having considered the contents of the Will, it is clear that petitioner No.1 was appointed as the executor of the Will and also provision is made to his children as well as to the Auditor on account of death as mentioned. But this petition is filed by the wife of the testator claiming that she is the executor. Having considered the contents of the Will, it is clear that she has been appointed as executor of the Will at Ex.P1 and petitioner No.1 has sought for the relief of probate. But this petition is filed by the wife of the testator claiming that she is the executor. Having considered the contents of the Will, it is clear that she has been appointed as executor of the Will at Ex.P1 and petitioner No.1 has sought for the relief of probate. In order prove the Will, petitioner No.1 is examined as PW3 and got marked the documents through PW3 i.e., Ex.P3 to P6 i.e., the citations taken in three editions of ‘The Hindu’ newspapers that is in Bengaluru, Kochi and Munbai editions since the properties are situated in the respective places as well as the citation was taken in ‘Udayavani’ newspaper, Bengaluru edition. It has to be noted that none appears before the Court claiming any interest in respect of probate as sought. 13. In order to prove the last Will also, examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 who categorically deposed that in their presence only, the testator has executed the Will which is marked at Ex.P1 and both of them identifies the signature of the testator and inter se identifies their signatures by the respective witnesses. Hence, the Will at Ex.P1 has been proved by examining the attesting witnesses. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner No.1 is entitled for probate as sought in the petition. 14. It has to be noted that petitioner No.1 is appointed as executor of the Will to administer the estate of the testator in terms of the Will and she undertakes to administer the estate of the testator and make a full and true inventory of his assets and exhibit the same after the grant of probate and also to render the true accounts of the estate. Having taken note of the averments made in paragraph 8 of the petition and considering the material available on record and also proving of the fact of very execution of the Will at Ex.P1, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner No.1 is entitled for grant probate since she has proved the same. Hence, I answer the said point as affirmative. Point No.2 15. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed and the probate is granted in favour of petitioner No.1 as sought. (ii) Petitioner No.1 shall file an affidavit of assets and valuation within one month. Hence, I answer the said point as affirmative. Point No.2 15. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed and the probate is granted in favour of petitioner No.1 as sought. (ii) Petitioner No.1 shall file an affidavit of assets and valuation within one month. (iii) Petitioner No.1 shall duly administer the property and credits of the deceased after making a full and true inventory thereof and exhibit the same in this Court within six months from the date of issue of probate. (iv) Petitioner No.1 shall render a true account of the property and credits of the deceased to this Court within one year from the date of issuing probate to her.