A Will is proved when attesting evidence establishes due execution and dispels suspicious circumstances.

The plaintiff sought probate of his mother S. Ponnammal’s registered Will dated 2 February 1987, which bequeathed her interest in the suit property to him and named him executor.

His sister, the defendant, opposed the grant, alleging that the Will was not knowingly or voluntarily executed and was surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

She admitted signing the Will as a witness but claimed she did not know its nature or contents.

The Original Petition was converted into a Testamentary Original Suit after she entered a caveat.

The plaintiff examined two attesting witnesses; the defendant gave evidence in opposition.

1. Whether the Will dated 2 February 1987 was true and valid, including whether it was duly executed and attested and whether the alleged suspicious circumstances were satisfactorily addressed.

2. Whether the plaintiff, as executor named in the Will, was entitled to probate.

3. What other relief, if any, should be granted.

The Court applied Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which prescribes the requirements for execution and attestation of a Will, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, concerning proof of an attested document by an attesting witness.

The propounder bears the burden of proving due execution and attestation, the testator’s sound disposing state of mind, and—where suspicious circumstances arise—of satisfactorily removing them so the Court is satisfied that the Will represents the testator’s free and conscious testamentary act.

Registration does not displace the statutory proof requirements for a Will.

The Court also referred to Jamila Begum (D) through LRs v. Shami Mohd. (D) through LRs & Another, (2019) 2 SCC 727, concerning the evidentiary significance of a registered document, while holding that registration alone does not establish a Will’s validity.

The Court accepted the evidence of two attesting witnesses, who testified that Ponnammal affixed her left thumb impression in their presence and that they signed in her presence; they also spoke to her sound disposing state of mind.

It considered the defendant’s admitted signature on the Will, the same-day execution of the release deed and Will, the testatrix’s age and alleged poor eyesight, the gap between the typed text and thumb impression, the defendant’s exclusion, and the delay in seeking probate.

It concluded that these circumstances, considered with the attesting witnesses’ evidence and the parties’ presence at the Sub-Registrar’s Office, did not outweigh the direct evidence of execution and attestation.

The defendant produced no medical or other convincing evidence establishing incapacity, fraud, coercion, or undue influence; the delay was also explained by the plaintiff’s later need to obtain probate in connection with dealing with the property.

The suit was decreed and probate granted to the plaintiff, as executor, with effect limited to Tamil Nadu.

He was directed to file a true and full inventory within six months of the grant and render true and proper accounts within one year; there was no order as to costs.