Registration of a Will does not dispense with proving its due execution and attestation.

The petitioner sought Letters of Administration with the Will annexed under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in respect of a registered Will dated 13.01.2011 executed by her maternal aunt, S. Saguntha Roja.

The deceased was stated to have died a spinster and issueless on 21.06.2011, with the petitioner claiming to be her only surviving legal heir and beneficiary under the Will.

Notice was issued to the Collector and citations were published, but no objection or caveat was received.

The petitioner examined herself and Balaji as P.W.2 and produced the original Will and other documents.

The Court subsequently directed clarification regarding the deceased’s other siblings, production of a legal-heirship certificate, and clarification of P.W.2’s relationship and status as an attesting witness; the petitioner did not furnish the required particulars or documents.

Whether the petitioner established the due execution and attestation of the registered Will dated 13.01.2011 so as to obtain Letters of Administration with the Will annexed?

Whether the evidence of P.W.2 satisfactorily established that he was an attesting witness to the Will?

Whether registration of the Will, by itself, dispensed with the requirement of proving its due execution and attestation?

The petition was filed under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which govern the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed where no executor is appointed.

A Will must be proved through evidence establishing its due execution and attestation in accordance with law; the requirement of proving attestation is not eliminated merely because the Will is registered.

The applicable statutory framework includes Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, concerning attestation of an unprivileged Will, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requiring examination of an attesting witness where such witness is available.

The identity and testimony of the attesting witness must correspond with the particulars appearing in the original Will.

The Court found material inconsistencies between Ex.P1 and the testimony of P.W.2. Although the Will recorded that the testatrix affixed her left thumb impression due to her health condition, P.W.2 stated that she signed the Will in his presence.

P.W.2 claimed to be the fourth attesting witness, whereas the fourth witness named in the Will was C. Mani; he also referred to “Rajasekar” as another attesting witness, although no such person appeared in Ex.P1.

Further, the English translation identified the fifth attesting witness as “S. Shiva, son of Sadhanantham,” while P.W.2 was Balaji, son of Sadhanantham.

The affidavit described as that of an attesting witness had been sworn by S. Rajeswari Sadhanandam, who was shown in the Will only as an identifying witness before the Sub-Registrar and was not examined in Court.

In view of these discrepancies, the Court held that P.W.2’s status as an attesting witness was doubtful and that the Will had not been proved in accordance with law.

Its registration could not cure the failure to establish due execution and attestation.

Consequently, the petition for Letters of Administration with the Will annexed was dismissed, with no order as to costs.