Son’s Forgery Challenge Fails As Madras HC Upholds Former IIT Faculty Member’s Will Giving Nephew One-Third Of Immovable Property

The respondent, a nephew of the testator Dr. S.K. Srinivasan, sought probate of the testator’s unregistered Will dated 22 November 2000.

The Will bequeathed one-third of the testator’s immovable-property share to the respondent and the remaining two-thirds to the testator’s eldest son; the testator’s movable properties were to be shared equally among his four sons.

After the appellant, one of the testator’s sons, entered a caveat, the probate petition became a testamentary suit.

The appellant alleged forgery, lack of testamentary capacity, suspicious circumstances, and that the suit was not maintainable because only one of two named executors had sought probate.

The Single Judge granted probate, and the appellant appealed.

Under Section 224 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, where several executors are appointed, probate may be granted to them together or at different times.

Under Section 311, absent a contrary direction in the Will, the powers of several executors may be exercised by one who has proved the Will or taken out administration; the section’s illustration recognises that a contrary direction requiring a quorum may prevent action by one executor alone.

Section 63(c) requires due attestation of a Will.

The Court also applied the principles that execution and attestation must be proved, and that a party alleging forgery must establish that allegation; it identified no precedent for these principles.

The Will contained no direction requiring the executors to act jointly, and the other executor had consented to the probate proceedings; accordingly, one executor could seek probate.

The two attesting witnesses testified that they saw the testator sign and that he saw them attest the Will, satisfying the Court as to execution and attestation under Section 63(c).

The correction in a witness’s affidavit concerning the room where the Will was signed was explained and did not undermine their testimony.

The Court found no adequate evidence supporting the allegations of forgery, poisoning, or incapacity; the appellant’s own evidence that the testator undertook professional work and other activities after 2000 supported the finding that he retained capacity.

The Court also noted evidence that the relationship between the appellant and the testator was not cordial, which could explain the disposition of the immovable property.

The appeal was dismissed, the Single Judge’s decree and grant of probate were confirmed, and no costs were awarded; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.