Letters of administration may issue for a temple leasehold bequest without impleading the temple owner.

The plaintiff sought Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in respect of her mother Ramathilagam’s registered Will dated 12 March 2001.

The Will bequeathed to the plaintiff leasehold rights over 1,394 sq. ft. of Temple land; an earlier Will had bequeathed the remaining 1,189 sq. ft. to the testatrix’s son, whose heirs are the defendants.

The defendants opposed the grant, alleging undue influence and disputing the Will’s due execution; they also argued that the Temple was a necessary party and relied on their occupation of the property and payment of rent.

After the defendants entered a caveat, the original petition was converted into a Testamentary Original Suit.

The Court recorded five issues concerning entitlement to the grant, due execution and validity, non-joinder of the Temple, fraud or coercion, and relief.

Whether the Will dated 12 March 2001 was duly executed and attested by the testatrix while of sound and disposing mind, and was genuine and valid.

Whether the Will was procured by fraud, coercion, or undue influence.

Whether the plaintiff could obtain Letters of Administration concerning the testatrix’s leasehold interest in Temple land, and whether the Temple’s non-joinder defeated the suit.

Whether the defendants’ objections concerning the vacant land, rent payments, and the plaintiff’s alleged lack of leasehold rights precluded the grant.

Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 requires a Will to be attested by two or more witnesses, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 requires at least one available attesting witness to be called to prove its execution.

The judgment also considered Section 100 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, holding it inapplicable where the bequest is not made to a religious institution and does not create one, but concerns the testatrix’s leasehold right.

The parties cited H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and other authorities on proof of Wills and the propounder’s obligation to address suspicious circumstances; the Court’s application of those principles is reflected in its assessment of the attesting witness’s evidence and the objections raised.

The Court accepted the evidence of P.W.1, an attesting witness, that he saw the testatrix sign the Will and then signed it with the other attesting witness, finding the statutory requirements of proof satisfied.

It considered the testatrix’s continued conduct of her affairs, her earlier Will in favour of her son, and the later Will’s reference to that earlier bequest sufficient to reject the challenge to her testamentary capacity.

The Court found the allegation of pressure unsupported by a sustainable objection and held that the plaintiff’s bequest concerned only the testatrix’s leasehold interest, not Temple ownership.

It rejected non-joinder, noting that the defendants had likewise obtained a grant concerning the earlier Will without impleading the Temple; it also held that the Temple’s decision on continuation of the lease remained unaffected by the testamentary grant.

Payment of rent and public dues by the defendants did not, by itself, defeat the bequest.

It decreed the suit and directed that Letters of Administration with the Will annexed be granted to the plaintiff, limited to Tamil Nadu and the scheduled property.

The plaintiff was directed to provide a security bond of Rs. 25,000, file an inventory within six months of the grant, and render an account within one year.