Letters of administration may issue on a copy of a lost will if its loss and execution are proved.

The appellant, son of testator Aravamudha Iyengar, sought Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in respect of the ‘C’ schedule property, which the Will dated 7 March 1981 bequeathed to him subject to a life interest in Jayammal.

He claimed that the original Will had been lost during a house move while in the custody of his late brother, and could not be traced; Jayammal died in 2024.

The respondents, the testator’s other children and grandchildren, filed consent affidavits.

The attesting witnesses had died; the daughter of one attesting witness testified and identified the signatures of both the testator and her father, an attesting witness.

The single Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the photocopy had not been proved to be a true copy and that no witness had last seen the Will to identify it.

The appellant challenged that dismissal.

Whether the appellant proved execution of the Will in accordance with Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, where both attesting witnesses had died.

Whether Letters of Administration could be granted on the basis of a copy of the Will where the original was stated to have been lost and the loss was explained.

Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides a method of proving a document required by law to be attested when no attesting witness can be found, including proof of the handwriting of an attesting witness and the executant.

Section 237 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 permits a grant in respect of a Will that has been lost or destroyed, subject to the statutory requirements.

The Court held that PW2’s identification of her grandfather’s signature as executant and her father’s signature as an attesting witness satisfied Section 69.

It also accepted the explanation that the original Will was lost during a house move, noting that the respondents had consented and the loss was not objected to.

In light of that explanation, the admissibility of secondary evidence and Section 237, the Court found that the single Judge should not have rejected the petition solely because the photocopy was not established as a true copy by a witness who had last seen the original.

The appellant was held entitled to Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in respect of the ‘C’ schedule property, limited to Tamil Nadu and to the assets listed in the affidavit of assets.

He was directed to execute a security bond of ₹25,000, if not already paid, file a full and true inventory within six months of receiving the grant, and render a true and proper account within one year thereafter.