A propounder who fails to prove execution and dispel suspicious circumstances cannot obtain testamentary administration.

The petitioner, a tenant of the deceased V. Chandran, sought Letters of Administration with a Will annexed, relying on a Will dated 30 June 2012 that allegedly bequeathed Chandran’s property to him.

Chandran’s wife and son opposed the grant, alleging that the Will was forged.

The petitioner examined himself and one attesting witness; a handwriting expert also gave evidence. The respondents produced medical records and obtained expert comparison of the disputed signatures with signatures attributed to Chandran in bank documents.

The petition, originally presented in 2013 and numbered in 2017, was converted into a testamentary suit after the respondents entered a caveat.

Whether the Will dated 30 June 2012 was true and valid

Whether the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind when the Will was allegedly executed

The court placed the burden on the propounder to prove the Will’s due execution and genuineness and to establish the testator’s sound and disposing state of mind; where circumstances surrounding execution raise suspicion, the propounder must satisfactorily dispel it.

Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, were invoked by the respondents as governing the execution and proof of a Will.

The court assessed the attesting witness’s evidence and the handwriting expert’s opinion in evaluating that burden.

The court found material inconsistencies in the attesting witness’s accounts of where the Will was executed: his affidavit identified the testator’s residence, while his cross-examination identified a hotel; he also testified that the petitioner had arranged his attendance.

The petitioner did not explain how the Will came into his custody, and the Will excluded the testator’s wife and son without explanation.

Although the testator’s medical condition did not itself establish incapacity, the evidence did not clarify his condition or explain his alleged travel to the hotel.

The expert found differences between the disputed and comparison signatures, and the court considered those findings consistent with its visual comparison.

Taken cumulatively, the evidence failed to prove due execution, capacity, or dispel the suspicions; the court concluded the Will was forged.

The suit seeking Letters of Administration was dismissed with costs.