SRI SUTHA DEVI vs M.KARTHIK MEYYAPPAN

TOS No. 26 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 07.09.2026
Pronounced on 30.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
TOS No. 26 of 2014
1.Sri Sutha Devi
Plot No.246, 22nd St,
Sri Krishna Nagar,
Maduravoyal,
Chennai - 600 095
2.Miss.Banasankari
Minor, aged 14 years,
Rep By Mother And Guardian Sri Sutha Devi,
nd
Plot No.246, 22 Street,
Sri Krishna nagar,
Maduravoyal,
Chennai -600095
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.M.Karthik Meyyappan
9-A, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
AVM Avenue,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004
2.Ranjini Murugan
9-A, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
AVM Avenue,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004
3.Latha
9-A, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
AVM Avenue,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004
4.Ramadevi
__________
Page1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
D4 Rep. by her Power of Attorney Agent
Ranjini Murugan, the 2nd Defendant herein
5.K. Rajendran
6.Vishnu Rajendran
7.Vinayak Rajendran
8.Vikram Rajendran
D5 TO D8 RESIDING AT 9-A Dr Radhakrishnan
Salai AVM Avenue Chennai 4. D5 TO D8
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 22.07.2015
IN A.4765 OF 15
..Respondent(s)
TOS No. 26 of 2014
TOS is filed under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act XXXIX
of 1925 for the grant of Letters of Administration, against this petition the 1st
Caveator filed a Caveat and supporting affidavit on 17th day of September
2013, the 2nd Caveator filed a Caveat and supporting affidavit on 13th day of
December 2013, the 3rd and 4th Caveator filed a Caveat on 2nd day of June
2014. As per order of court dated 26.06.2014 in O.P.No.837 of 2013 the
Original Petition is directed to be converted into Testamentary Original Suit.
TOS No. 26 of 2014
For Petitioner(s): M/s.K.Newlin Frederick
For Respondent(s): M/s.K.V.Babu
D1 To D8
__________
Page2 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
Judgment
This Testamentary Original Suit arises out of O.P.No.837 of 2013, filed
by the plaintiffs seeking probate of the last Will and Testament of late
A.V.M.Murugan, dated 24.11.2008, registered before the Sub Registrar,
Kodambakkam.
2.The case of the plaintiffs is that, the deceased was the son of late
A.V.Meiyappan and belonged to the A.V.M Family. He owned several movable
and immovable properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the testator’s
nd
relationship with his wife, the 2 defendant, became strained and that he lived
separately from her. He subsequently married one Vimala on 13.11.1978 and
lived with her until her death on 18.06.1994.
3.The plaintiffs further state that the testator thereafter lived with his
mother, late A.V.M.Rajeshwari, at A.V.M. Avenue, Mylapore. According to
st
them, the 1 plaintiff was engaged as a care taker for the mother of the testator
and subsequently took care of the testator as well. It is their case that the testator
st
treated the 1 plaintiff as his daughter and arranged a marriage with
nd
P.K.Vinayagam in the year 2005. The 2 plaintiff is also claimed to have been
treated by the testator as his foster daughter.
__________
Page3 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
4.According to the plaintiffs, out of love and affection and in
consideration of the care and assistance rendered by them, the testator executed
the subject Will dated 24.11.2008. The Will was registered before the Sub
Registrar, Kodambakkam. The plaintiffs contend that the testator was in a sound
and disposing state of mind, understood the nature and consequences of the
dispositions and executed the Will voluntarily and without coercion, undue
influence or fraud. Hence, prayed for grant of Letters of Administration with the
Will annexed.
5. On the other hand, the defendants dispute the relationship asserted by
st
the plaintiffs. According to them, the 1 plaintiff was initially engaged as a
caretaker and subsequently obtained access to the testator and his affairs. The
further case of the defendants is that late A.V.M.Murugan is the son of late
A.V.Meiyappan, who was the founder of AVM Studios in the year 1940s and a
reputed cinema studio in India and AVM is called the pioneer in the cine
photography industry and was running the business under the name and style of
AVM Cine Lab, situate inside AVM studios ever since 1978. The said AVM
Murugan belong to a reputed family and the present defendants are none other
than his son, wife, daughter, son-in-law and grand children. There is absolutely
no necessity or need for late A.V.M.Murugan to exclude the family and execute
an alleged Will in favour of a seven maid and alleged foster daughter. Taking
__________
Page4 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
st
advantage of the family situation, the 1 plaintiff who was looking after
AVM.Rajeshwari, had acquainted with the testator and by manipulating the
circumstances for a benefit, created various documents and the present alleged
Will is one among them. The alleged Will was brought about by fraud, undue
influence and by persons who are no way related to the testator. Hence, prayed
for dismissal of the suit.
6.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by this
Court on 09.06.2015:
(i) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the grant of Letters of
Administration with the WILL as prayed for?
(ii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Class-I legal
heirs of Late. AVM.Murugan?
(iii) Whether the WILL has been executed in a suspicious,
surreptitious circumstances?
(iv) Whether the WILL produced is genuine and legally
enforceable one?
(v) To what other reliefs the parties are entitled to?
(vi) Whether the WILL dated 24.11.2008 was executed by the
Testator in a sound and disposing state of mind and
understanding?
__________
Page5 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
st
7.On the side of the plaintiffs, the 1 plaintiff was examined as P.W1.
Exs.P1 to P3 were marked.
Ex.P1 is the original Death Certificate of AVM.Murugan dated 10.09.2012.
Ex.P2 is the registered original WILL dated 24.11.2008.
Ex.P3 is the original letter dated 08.10.2012 issued by Mr.K.S.Dhinakaran,
Advocate, renouncing his Executorship.
The said PW1 was extensively cross-examined and during the cross-
examination, Ex.D1 to D8 were marked in the cross-examination through PW1.
Ex.D1 is the Birth Certificate of the 2nd Plaintiff Banasankari issued by
Perungalathur Town Panchayat.
Ex.D2 is the Birth Certificate issued by the Corporation of Chennai for the 2nd
Plaintiff Banasankari.
Ex. D3 is the order granting divorce between the Plaintiff and Mr.Ramesh.
Ex.D4 is the copy of Settlement Deed dated 22.03.2005 executed by
st
AVM.Murugan in favour of the 1 Plaintiff.
st
Ex.D5 is the Sale Deed dated 04.08.2006 executed by the 1 Plaintiff in favour
of Mr. Kishore and Padmini Kishore.
Ex.D6 is the Certificate of Marriage issued by the Marriage Registrar, Second
st
Line Beach, Chennai 600 001, between the 1 Plaintiff and Mr.Vinayagam
__________
Page6 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
dated 10.06.2005.
Ex.D7 is the Destitution Certificate dated 28.08.1991 issued by the Tahsildar,
st
Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, stating that the 1 Plaintiff is an orphan.
Ex.D8 is a Notice dated 26.09.2012 issued by the then Counsel of the Plaintiffs,
st
to the 1 Defendant.
Ex.D9 is the Affidavit of Assets.
Issue Nos.1 to 6:
8.The plaintiffs claim to be the foster daughters of the deceased testator
and the principal beneficiaries under the Will. The defendants, who are the
legal heirs of the deceased, entered caveat disputing the genuineness and due
execution of the Will. Consequently, the original petition stood converted into
the present testamentary original suit.
9.It is the case of the plaintiffs that the testator’s relationship with his
nd
wife, the 2 defendant became strained and that he lived separately from her.
He subsequently married one Vimala on 13.11.1978 and lived with her until her
death on 18.06.1994. The plaintiffs rely upon Ex.P.7 to contend that the testator
himself described the plaintiffs as his foster daughters and P.K.Vinayagam as
his son-in-law. The specific contention of the plaintiffs is that the testator
executed Ex.P.2 Will dated 24.11.2008 out of love and affection and in
consideration of the care and assistance rendered by them. It is not in dispute
that the said Will is registered.
__________
Page7 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
10.Mr.K.Newlin Frederick, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs rely
principally upon the evidence of one K.Ragavendran, examined as C.W.1, one
of the attesting witnesses. According to C.W.1, the testator brought the Will to
the Sub Registrar’s Office, signed the same and the attesting witnesses
thereafter attested it.
11.He would further contend that the mere fact that the defendants, being
natural heirs, were not substantially benefited under the Will cannot constitute a
suspicious circumstance. He further rely upon the strained relationship between
the testator and certain members of his family as explaining the testamentary
disposition. He had also explained Ex.D4, settlement deed dated 22.03.2005 and
st
Ex.D5, sale deed dated 04.08.2006, wherein the 1 plaintiff is described as the
wife of the testator. According to him, those descriptions were not made by the
st
1 plaintiff and the documents had been prepared by others. He further relied
upon Ex.P3, letter dated 08.10.2012 issued by a Senior Advocate namely
Mr.K.S.Dhinakaran, the executor named in the Will, stating that he was unable
to act as executor and handing over the Will for further action. The learned
counsel has relied upon the following judgments:
1.1990 Law Weekly (Crl) 409
2.(1995) 4 SCC 459
3 2024(5) CTC 67
__________
Page8 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
12.Per contra, Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel for the defendants contends
that Ex.P2 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and that the plaintiffs
have failed to establish that the Will represents the free and voluntary
testamentary act of the deceased. Particular reliance is placed upon Ex.D4 and
st
Ex,D5, wherein the 1 plaintiff is described as the wife of the testator,
notwithstanding the fact that Ex.D6 records her marriage with P.K.Vinayagam
and the testator himself is an attesting witness thereto. He also relied upon the
chronology of Ex.D8 dated 26.09.2012 and Ex.P.3 dated 08.10.2012. According
to him, Ex.D8 refers to the Will and proposed probate proceedings even before
the executor allegedly handed over the original Will to the counsel under
Ex.P.3.He further challenged the reliability of C.W1 and contend that the
circumstances in which he was summoned and examined cast doubt upon his
evidence. The learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:
1.2026 SCC Online Sc 1266
2.2025 SCC Online SC 1466
3.MANU/SC/1090/2023
4.MANU/SC/1219/2021
5.MANU/SC/0450/2020
6.MANU/SC/0395/2020
7.MANU/TN/0895/2017
8.MANU/SC/1671/1994
__________
Page9 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
9.MANU/SC/0115/1958
13.Heard and records perused.
14.The law governing proof of a Will is well settled. Under Section 63 (c)
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Will must be attested by two or more
witnesses in the manner prescribed therein. Under Section 68 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, at least one attesting witness is required to be examined for
proving execution of a document which is required by law to be attested.
15.In H.Vengatachala Iyyangar Vs. B.N.Thinmmajamma, reported in
AIR 1959 SC 443, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the propounder has to
establish that the Will was duly executed and that the testator possessed a sound
and disposing state of mind and understood the nature and effect of the
dispositions. Where suspicious circumstances surrounded the execution, the
propounder has to remove those circumstances by satisfactory evidence.
16.In the present case, C.W.1 has spoken about the execution of Ex.P.2
Will and has stated that the testator signed the Will and that the attesting
witnesses attested it. His evidence, if considered in isolation, may establish
substantial compliance with the formal requirement of proof. However, the
Court is required to examine the entire evidence because the defendants have
__________
Page10 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
specifically raised circumstances which, according to them, cast legitimate
doubt upon the testamentary document.
17.The first circumstance relates to the nature of the relationship between
the testator and the principal beneficiaries. The plaintiffs assert that they were
st
the foster daughters of the testator and that the 1 plaintiff had been treated as a
st
daughter. The defendants, however, contend that the 1 plaintiff initially entered
the household as a caretaker. Ex.P.7 lends some support to the plaintiffs’
assertion that the testator described them as his foster daughters. However, this
document has to be considered along with the other documentary evidence.
st
Ex.D4, the settlement deed dated 22.03.2005, describes the 1 plaintiff as the
wife of AVM.Murugan. Ex.D5, the sale deed dated 04.08.2006 contains a
st
similar description. Ex.D.6, however, records the marriage of the 1 plaintiff
with P.K.Vinayagam on 10.06.2005, with the testator himself being an attesting
witness.
18.The plaintiffs have explained that the description in Ex.D4 and Ex.D5
was not supplied by them and that the documents had been prepared by others.
This explanation cannot be rejected merely because the description appears in
those documents. Nevertheless, the Court cannot ignore the fact that there are
st
materially inconsistent descriptions of the relationship of the 1 plaintiff with
the deceased in contemporaneous document. When the entire estate is
__________
Page11 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
substantially bequeathed to the plaintiffs, the circumstance assumes relevance in
examining the overall genuineness of the testamentary dispositions.
19.The second circumstance relates to the chronology of Ex.D8 and
Ex.P3. Ex.D8 is dated 26.09.2012 and was issued by the erstwhile counsel
referring to the Will and the proposed probate proceedings. Ex.P3 is dated
08.10.2012 and is the letter of the executor named in the Will stating that he
was unable to act and handing over the Will for further action. The plaintiffs
have offered an explanation that they had already approached the executor and
their counsel and that the letter Ex.P.3 was only a formal communication
regarding the handing over of the Will. The explanation is not inherently
impossible. However, when the chronology is specifically challenged, the
plaintiffs were required to establish by cogent evidence the circumstances in
which the original Will was obtained, when it was shown to the executor, when
the counsel was instructed and why Ex.D8 preceded Ex.P3. The evidence on
record does not satisfactorily establish this sequence.
20.The third circumstance concerns the evidence of C.W.1. This Court is
conscious that merely because an attesting witness is examined pursuant to
summons or subpoena, his evidence cannot automatically be rejected. The Court
must examine the substance of his testimony. However, the evidence of P.W1
and C.W1 regarding the circumstances in which C.W1 came to be contacted and
__________
Page12 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
examined is not entirely consistent. P.W1’s evidence regarding her contact with
the attesting witness and C.W1’s evidence regarding his acquaintance with
P.W1 require scrutiny. This Court does not hold that C.W.1 has deliberately
given false evidence or that he was procured by the plaintiffs. Such a finding
cannot be recorded without positive evidence. Nevertheless, when his evidence
is considered along with the other circumstances, the Court is unable to treat his
evidence as sufficient by itself to dispel the doubts arising from the surrounding
circumstances.
21.The fourth circumstance relates to the testamentary capacity of the
deceased. The plaintiffs’ rely upon C.W1’s evidence that the testator was in a
sound state of mind. The defendants have not produced convincing medical
evidence establishing that the testator lacked testamentary capacity on
24.11.2008. Therefore, this Court does not record a finding that the testator was
mentally incapable of executing a Will. However, the absence of proof of
incapacity does not automatically establish the genuineness of the Will. The
plaintiffs must establish that Ex.P2 was the free and conscious testamentary act
of the deceased, particularly when other circumstances require explanation.
22.The fifth circumstance is the substantial benefit conferred upon the
plaintiffs. As already stated, the Court does not regard an unequal distribution or
__________
Page13 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
exclusion of natural heirs as invalid in law. A testator is entitled to dispose of
his property as he chooses. However, the substantial benefit received by the
propounders becomes a relevance circumstance when coupled with other
features surrounding the execution. The Court therefore considers it only as a
component of the cumulative circumstances and not as an independent ground
for rejecting the Will.
23.The Court has also considered the contention that the testator had a
strained relationship with his wife and other members of his family. If
established, such strained relationship could provide a perfectly legitimate
explanation for excluding or reducing the benefit of natural heirs. But that
circumstance does not answer the other questions arising from the documentary
inconsistencies and the chronology surrounding the Will.
24.Therefore, it is required to determine whether the circumstances relied
upon by the defendants are real, germane and valid, rather than matters arising
merely from suspicion or conjecture. In the considered view of this Court, the
following circumstances, when taken cumulatively, require satisfactory
explanation:
( i) the substantial testamentary benefit conferred upon the plaintiffs;
(ii) the disputed nature of the relationship between the plaintiffs and the
__________
Page14 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
deceased;
st
(iii) the inconsistent description of the 1 plaintiff in Ex.D4 and Ex.D5 when
compared with Ex.D6;
(iv) the chronology between Ex.D8 dated 26.09.2012 and Ex.P3 dated
08.10.2012;
(v) the inconsistencies concerning the circumstances in which the attesting
witness came to be contacted and examined; and
(vi) the absence of sufficiently satisfactory independent evidence explaining the
circumstances in which the original Will came to be acted upon immediately
after the death of the testator.
25.None of these circumstances, considered individually, would
necessarily invalidate a Will. The question, however, is whether the propounder
have satisfactorily removed the cumulative doubt created by them. On an
overall assessment of the evidence, this Court is unable to hold that the
plaintiffs have discharged that burden. The plaintiffs, as propounders of Ex.P2,
have failed to dispel the legitimate suspicious circumstances surrounding the
Will to the satisfaction of the Court.
26.The mere fact that Ex.P.2 is registered cannot alter this conclusion.
Registration may constitute a circumstance supporting genuineness, particularly
__________
Page15 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
where the evidence of registration demonstrates that the testator admitted
execution with knowledge of the document. But registration does not dispense
with the statutory requirement of proof of due execution and attestation.
Likewise, the evidence of one attesting witness satisfies the mode of proof only
if that evidence establishes the statutory requirements. In the present case,
although C.W.1 has spoken to execution and attestation, his evidence must be
viewed against the other circumstances, and the Court is not satisfied that his
testimony, by itself, removes the doubts arising from the surrounding evidence.
27.The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that in testamentary
proceedings the Court must ultimately satisfy its conscience, having regard to
the totality of circumstances, as to whether the document propounded is in fact
the last Will of the deceased and is the product of his free and sound disposing
mind. Applying the above principles, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have
failed to establish Ex.P2 to the standard required in a contested testamentary
proceeding. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to remove the cloud over the
issue of suspicious, surreptitious, surrounding circumstances. As rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for the defendants, it is apparently made clear that,
taking advantage of the family situations and the old age of AVM.Murugan, the
plaintiffs have influenced the testator and created Ex.P2 Will.

__________
Page16 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
28.As regards non-joinder, the natural heirs of the deceased who are
necessary parties to the testamentary proceedings are before the Court. The
objection regarding non-joinder therefore does not survive for consideration.
29.In view of the findings recorded above, the plaintiffs are not entitled to
grant of Letters of Administration with the Will dated 24.11.2008 annexed
thereto.
30.In the result, TOS.No.26 of 2014 is dismissed. No costs.

30-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
VSN
__________
Page17 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

TOS No. 26 of 2014
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI J.
VSN
TOS No. 26 of 2014
30-10-2026
__________
Page18 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )