Attesting-witness testimony established due execution and testamentary capacity, warranting grant of probate.

Dr. Ram Rathan Rai executed an unregistered Will dated 5 September 2024 appointing the petitioner, G. Sughita, as executor and disposing of his estate. He died on 12 December 2024.

The petitioner sought probate under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Respondents 2 to 5 filed consent affidavits; the petitioner testified, and the Will’s second attesting witness testified to its voluntary execution, the testator’s sound disposing state of mind, and the witnesses’ signatures at the testator’s request.

Whether the Will dated 5 September 2024 was duly executed and proved so as to support a grant of probate.

Whether probate should be granted to the petitioner as the executor named in the Will.

The petition invoked Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, concerning the grant of probate to an executor and the procedure for seeking probate; it was also brought under Order XXV, Rule 4 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, 1956.

The Court required proof of due execution of the Will and treated the attesting witness’s evidence, alongside the pleadings and consent affidavits, as establishing the requirements for probate. No precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court considered the original Will, the petitioner’s evidence, the consent affidavits of respondents 2 to 5, and the testimony of the second attesting witness.

That witness confirmed voluntary execution, the testator’s sound disposing state of mind, and the attesting witnesses’ signatures at the testator’s request. On that evidence, the Court was satisfied that the Will was duly executed and the requirements for probate had been established.

The petitioner was directed to file a full and true inventory within six months of the grant and render true accounts within one year; no costs were ordered.