S.K.VENKATESAN vs K.S. Varadarajan

OSA No. 8 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA No. 8 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA010237422023}
AND
CMP NO. 1818 OF 2024
S.K.Venkatesan
..Appellant(s)
Vs
K.S. Varadarajan
..Respondent(s)
Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original
Side Rules r/w. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated
24.08.2022 in T.O.S.No.24 of 2008.
For Appellant(s): M/s.C.S.Vedavalli
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Rajendra Kumar
for Mr.S.Gurumoorthy
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.)
Challenging the decree and judgment of the learned Single Judge of this
Court passed in T.O.S.No.24 of 2008, dated 24.08.2022, granting probate of the
Will dated 22.11.2000 executed by one Dr.S.K.Srinivasan, the present Appeal
has been filed by the defendant in the suit.
__________
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:26 pm )

OSA No. 8 of 2024
2.The respondent is the beneficiary under the unregistered Will dated
22.11.2000 left by one Dr.S.K.Srinivasan. The respondent originally filed a
petition in O.P.No.726 of 2007 for grant of probate of the Will. As the
petitioner herein had entered caveat in the Original Petition, the same was
converted into a testamentary suit in T.O.S.No.24 of 2008 and was tried.
3.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their
ranking before the learned Single Judge.
4.Following are the brief facts of the case :
The testator Dr.S.K.Srinivasan was a former faculty of I.I.T., Madras.
The plaintiff is his nephew. The defendant is one of the sons of the testator.
According to the plaintiff, the testator has left an unregistered Will dated
22.11.2000 bequeathing 1/3rd share in the immovable properties in favour of
the plaintiff and remaining 2/3rd share in favour of one S.K.Ramanujan, the
eldest son of the testator. It is the further case of the plaintiff that, as per the
Will, all the movable properties left by the testator shall be paid equally to all
the four sons of the testator. Hence, the plaintiff filed the petition for probate of
the Will, which was later converted as testamentary suit as stated above.
__________
Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:26 pm )

OSA No. 8 of 2024
5.The defendant, who is one of the sons of the testator, disputed the Will.
The main defence set forth in the written statement filed by the defendant is that
the plaintiff is in the habit of forging the signature of the testator and
manipulating the records to suit his convenience. In a nutshell, it is his
contention that the Will is a forged one. It is his further contention that the
testator was not keeping good health and was not in possession of good mental
faculties at the relevant point of time when the Will was allegedly executed.
That apart, the plaintiff and his mother used to provide food to the testator and
in that process, they had administered slow poison to the testator from the year
1995 to 2007. On coming to know about that, the testator shifted his residence
to the First Floor of his house and he started cooking independently. The
testator made several investments in ICICI Bank and all other companies,
wherein, the defendant was made as a nominee. It is his contention that, in the
investments in M/s.Anubhav Plantations Ltd., the plaintiff had forged the
testator’s signature and taken the cheque issued by the said company.
Therefore, it is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff is involved in
criminal activities and misappropriation and he is squatting on the property and
is taking undue advantage of the Will. It is his further contention that, though
the Will names two Executors, the petition for grant of probate has been filed
only by one of the Executors which is not maintainable in law. Mere consent
affidavit given by the other Executor will not cure the procedural defect.
__________
Page 3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:26 pm )

OSA No. 8 of 2024
Further, there are several other litigations in O.S.No.3556 of 2011 filed against
the plaintiff by his own sisters. Hence, the defendant opposed the Will.
6.Based on the above pleadings, the learned Single Judge framed the
following issues in the suit :
1. Whether the Will dated 22.11.2000 is genuine ?
2. Relief and cost.
7.On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.P1
to P10 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were
examined and Exs.D1 to D61 were marked.
8.On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the
learned Single Judge, by judgment and decree dated 24.08.2022, decreed the
suit and granted probate of the Will in favour of the plaintiff.
9.Assailing the said judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge, the
present Appeal has been filed by the defendant.
10.The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant
is that the Will is surrounded with suspicious circumstances and the very
execution has not been established. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is highly
__________
Page 4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:26 pm )

OSA No. 8 of 2024
contradictory and inconsistent and their evidence clearly shows that the place of
execution has been corrected in their affidavit. It is her contention that, while
the original affidavit indicates as if the Will has been executed in the room of
the testator, during the trial, it has been corrected as the room of P.W.2. This
creates a suspicious circumstance with regard to the place of execution of the
Will. Further, it is her contention that Exs.D3 to D16 documents show that the
plaintiff has misappropriated the amount from M/s.Anubhav Plantation even
after the death of the testator. All these facts clearly show that the plaintiff has
forged the Will. The learned counsel would further submit that the testator died
in the year 2006 due to severe health ailments. This itself shows that he would
have been subjected to slow poisoning. Further, the deceased did not possess
mental faculties at the time when the alleged Will came to be executed. Hence,
she would pray for interference.
11.Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff
would submit that the testator was a reputed faculty in I.I.T., Madras and the
two attesting witnesses to the Will are none other than his students, who are also
reputed Professors of I.I.T. Therefore, there is no reason for them to give false
evidence. It is his contention that, merely because there is some correction in
their evidence with regard to the place where the Will was executed, that itself
is not sufficient to infer suspicious circumstances. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have
clearly explained in detail about the testator signing the Will in their presence in
__________
Page 5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:26 pm )

OSA No. 8 of 2024
their room and thereafter, about they attesting the Will. Their evidence with
regard to the execution and attestation of the Will remains unshattered.
Therefore, once two reputed Professors, in their evidence, have not only proved
the execution, but also the attestation of the Will, in the absence of any
suspicious circumstance brought on record, the learned Single Judge is right in
decreeing the suit and granting probate of the Will. Further, it is his contention
that, merely because one of the Executors has filed the petition, the suit cannot
be said to be not maintainable, since there is no bar under law for seeking
probate by one of the Executors. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the
above Appeal.
12.In the light of the above submissions, the points that arise for
consideration in this Appeal are as follows :
i. Whether the suit filed by one of the Executors for grant of
probate, is maintainable under law ?
ii. Whether the appellant/defendant has brought out any
suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will ?
iii. If so, whether the respondent/plaintiff has dispelled the said
suspicious circumstance(s) ?
iv. To what other relief ?
__________
Page 6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:26 pm )

OSA No. 8 of 2024
Point No. (i) :
13.With regard to the maintainability of the suit, it is admitted that the
testator has appointed two Executors of the Will, viz., (i) plaintiff, who is none
other than his nephew and (ii) his eldest son S.K.Ramanujan. It is not in dispute
that the eldest son is in America. It is also not in dispute that he has given a
consent affidavit to the plaintiff for seeking grant of probate.
14.Now, the question that remains to be answered is whether the suit filed
by one of the Executors is maintainable. It is relevant to note that, even under
Section 224 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, when several executors are
appointed, probate may be granted to them all simultaneously or at different
times. Similarly, Section 311 of the Act deals with powers of several executors
or administrators exercisable by one, which reads as follows :
“311.Powers of several executors or administrators
exercisable by one - When there are several executors or
administrators, the powers of all may, in the absence of any
direction to the contrary, be exercised by any one of them who
has proved the will or taken out administration.
Illustrations
(i) One of several executors has power to release a debt due to
the deceased.
(ii) One has power to surrender a lease.
(iii) One has power to sell the property of the deceased whether
__________
Page 7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:26 pm )

OSA No. 8 of 2024
moveable or immoveable.
(iv) One has power to assent to a legacy.
(v) One has power to endorse a promissory note payable to the
deceased.
(vi) The will appoints A, B, C and D to be executors, and directs
that two of them shall be a quorum. No act can be done by a
single executor. ”
15.On a careful perusal of the Will, absolutely, there is no direction in the
Will that all the Executors have to exercise the powers simultaneously. In the
absence of any such direction, we are of the view that one of the Executors can
file a petition/suit for grant of probate. Further, the other Executor has
admittedly filed his affidavit of consent. Therefore, we are of the view that the
contention of the appellant that the suit is not maintainable, has no legs to stand.
Point No.(i) is answered against the appellant.
Point Nos.(ii) to (iv) :
16.Admittedly, the testator was a former faculty of I.I.T., Madras. He is a
reputed person and even till his lifetime, he has also undertaken several
assignments as admitted by D.W.1 himself in his evidence. In fact, the testator
has undertaken an assignment in marine engineering even after 2003. That
apart, he has also conducted various symposiums/seminars and has released
various books also. These facts clearly show that the testator was not a rusty
__________
Page 8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:26 pm )

OSA No. 8 of 2024
ordinary man, but a reputed professor of I.I.T.
17.Ex.P2-Will written by the testator would clearly indicate that, out of
his immovable properties, he has bequeathed his 1/3rd share to his
nephew/plaintiff who is helping him in all times. Similarly, remaining 2/3rd
share is bequeathed to his eldest son S.K.Ramanujan. It is further to be noted
that the Will also clearly indicates that all the deposits and money due to the
testator shall be received by S.K.Ramanujan and shall be equally divided by all
his four sons. The very nature of the Will written by the testator
Dr.S.K.Srinivasan indicates that none of his children has been excluded.
18.P.W.2 and P.W.3 (attesting witnesses), in unison voice, have clearly
stated that, since they are the students of the testator, they continue to maintain
relationship with the testator and due to such friendship, at his request, they
witnessed the signing of the Will by the testator. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have stated
in their evidence that, on 22.11.2000, the testator brought the Will and in their
presence, he has signed the Will and both of them had seen the testator signing
the Will and the testator had also seen the attesting witnesses attesting the Will.
When their entire evidence is scanned, we find no suspicious circumstance,
whatsoever. Their evidence not only satisfies the execution aspect but also the
attestation as required under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act.
__________
Page 9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:26 pm )

OSA No. 8 of 2024
19.P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been cross-examined only with regard to some
minor corrections made in the affidavit with regard to the place of execution of
the Will by the testator. In the affidavit, originally, it has been typed as “in his
room” whereas, the same has been corrected by P.W.3 as “in Avudainayagam’s
room”, i.e., P.W.2’s room. He has given sufficient explanation in this regard
also. Therefore, mere correction effected in the affidavit prepared by a lawyer’s
clerk or lawyer, may not be a suspicious circumstance to discard the evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W.3 in entirety. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are reputed professors of I.I.T.
and there is no reason for them to give false evidence. Therefore, once
execution as well as attestation have been clearly established, it is for the
appellant/defendant to bring out any suspicious circumstance attached to the
Will.
20.In the above background, when the entire evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.3 is scanned, it can be seen that they were never cross-examined with
regard to the mental faculties of the testator at the relevant point of time. What
is emphasized is only with regard to the correction made with regard to the
place of signing the Will. Except that, there is no evidence to shatter the
evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 in any manner.
__________
Page 10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:26 pm )

OSA No. 8 of 2024
21.Further, on a perusal of the Will, it is relevant to note that it is neatly
typed and is very brief and shows the testator’s intention to bequeath his
immovable properties to the plaintiff and eldest son and to bequeath all the
movable properties to all his four sons. The testator has not excluded any of his
sons. Therefore, we do not find any suspicious circumstance on the face of the
Will.
22.It is also pleaded as if the plaintiff used to forge the signature of the
testator and in specific, the plaintiff has misappropriated the amount paid by
M/s.Anubhav Plantations Ltd. Except pleading such forgery, absolutely, there
is no material, whatsoever, placed on record to show that the plaintiff was in the
habit of committing forgery. Further, it is the contention of the defendant that
the Will also would have been forged by the plaintiff. When the execution and
attestation of the Will has been clearly established, once a plea of forgery is
taken, then the burden is on the person who sets up the plea of forgery to prove
the same. The defendant has not discharged his burden to prove the plea of
forgery. He has not even made any attempt, whatsoever, to show that the
signature found in the Will is not that of his father. Such being the position, the
plea of forgery, as taken out by the defendant, is nothing but purely academic.
__________
Page 11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:26 pm )

OSA No. 8 of 2024
23.The other contention of the defendant is that the testator did not
possess good mental faculties to execute the Will at the relevant point of time.
However, this has been dispelled by the evidence of D.W.1. He himself has
admitted that, even after execution of the Will in the year 2000, his father has
undertaken an assignment in marine engineering in the year 2003 and has also
conducted symposiums/seminars and released various books. The very
admission of the defendant himself clearly shows that the testator was in good
mental capacity to take a rational decision.
24.The other contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff and his
mother had administered slow poison to the testator from the year 1995 to 2007,
which also deteriorated the health condition of the testator. Except such a
pleading, absolutely, there is no material in support of the said contention. Even
in the cross-examination, the defendant has admitted that he has mentioned
about such possibility which he had informed to the Doctor and one N.Ram.
25.Further, the very evidence of D.W.1 itself clearly indicates that his
father has not even attended his marriage. This itself clearly shows that the
relationship with the father and the son was not cordial. This may be one of the
reasons to exclude his son from allotting immovable properties. Therefore, this
fact cannot be ignored altogether. In any event, the defendant has not
__________
Page 12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:26 pm )

OSA No. 8 of 2024
successfully brought out any suspicious circumstance attached to the Will.
26.When none of the suspicious circumstances as alleged by the
defendant has been established, the question of dispelling the same by the
plaintiff does not arise at all. Accordingly, Point Nos.(ii) to (iv) are answered
against the appellant/defendant.
27.Accordingly, we find no merit in this Appeal. As a result, this
Original Side Appeal is dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment passed
by the learned Single Judge. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
(N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.)
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MKN
__________
Page 13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:26 pm )

OSA No. 8 of 2024
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
AND
GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J.
MKN
OSA No. 8 of 2024
03-11-2026
__________
Page 14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:02:26 pm )