Madras High Court
S. Thirunavukkarasu vs B. Kandasuamy Reddy And 2 Others on 2 April, 2001
Author: M. Chockalingam
Bench: M. Chockalingam
ORDER
1. This suit has been filed for grant of letters of administration, in respect of the Last Will and Testament dated 5.4.1985, executed by Mrs. G. Nagammal who died on 14.5.1985.
2. Plaint averments are as follows:
One G. Nagammal, wife of late Gopal Reddiar died on 14.5.1985 at No. 10, 8th Street, Dasarathapuram, Saligramam, Madras-93. She executed her last will and testament and it was duly attested by the witnesses. Plaintiff is the sole beneficiary under the Will. The consent affidavit of Mr. Subramani is filed. The husband of the testatrix predeceased her, leaving his wife and his brother Kandasami Raddiar, Hence the suit.
3. In his written statement, the first defendant has alleged that Nagammal did not voluntarily execute any Will. Only through duress, coercion and fraud as well as fear administered by-the plaintiff, the writing could have been procured, which flourished as the Will of Nagammal. If Nagammal was indeed the wife, the Will of Gopal Reddiar would have referred to the same. One week earlier to the alleged execution of the Will, the judgment in O.S. No. 11148 of 1978 was passed by the City Civil Court. The said suit was filed by Nagammal. English language was not conversant to the, testator. Thus a total suspicion shrouded in the execution. The alleged Will of Nagammal is neither true or genuine nor would the same confer any title in favour of the plaintiff. The Will must have been obtained through fraud and by exercise of undue influence. The testator was not ill at the time of the alleged execution of the Will and hence it must have been obtained through undue influence. There was already a complete disposal of the property by the Will of Gopal Reddiar himself. The execution of the Will by Nagammal is an attempt to defeat the just claims of the defendant. The Will is not valid. Hence the suit may be dismissed.
4. The defendants 2 and 3 filed a written statement contending that the testator filed a suit in O.S. No.1148 of 1978 before the City Civil Court for a declaration that she was the legal wife of late Gopal Reddiar. The said Gopal Reddiar died leaving his last will and testament, wherein he has bequeathed his property in favour of the defendants 2 and 3. Judgment was delivered in that suit. The first defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.793 of 1985. The Will of Gopal Reddiar was proved, in O.P.No.433 of 1994 and probate was, granted in-favour of the first defendant. The testatrix under the Will had bequeathed the properties in favour of the plaintiff and the properties were originally owned by late Gopal Reddiar and bequeathed in favour of the defendants. Nagammal had no rights in the property. She did not own or possess the properties mentioned in the affidavit of assets. The Will executed by Gopal Reddiar has been duly proved and probate was obtained. She has not filed any objection to it. The Will is a fabricated one. She would not have executed the same with full conscience and knowing the contents. The grant of probate of the Will of Gopal Reddiar has become final. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the Will executed by Nagammal is genuine and valid and whether she was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of the execution of the Will? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of letters of administration as the sole beneficiary under the Will?
(3) To what relief, are the parties entitled to?
6. ISSUES 1 to 3 :- The plaintiff has filed the suit for giant of letters of administration, alleging that Nagammal who died on 14.5.1985 had executed her Last Will and Testament on 5.4.1985 in a sound and disposing state of mind.
7. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1.. He would depose that the first defendant is his uncle. His aunt's name is Nagammal. Ex.Pl is the original unregistered last will and testament executed by her on 5.4.85. It is true that Nagammal has teen declared as legally wedded wife of Gopal Reddiar in O.S. No. 11148 of 1978. Gopal Reddiar prior to his death has not executed a Will in favour, of the first defendant. At the time of Gopal Reddiar's death, he was with him. Ex.P2 is the original death extract in respect of Gopal Reddiar while Ex.P3 is that of Nagammal. His father furnished a consent affidavit stating that he has no objection for grant of letters of administration to him. Ex.P4 is the said consent affidavit. Ex .P5 is the affidavit submitted by one of the attesting witnesses Mr. Kannappan. Ex P6 is the affidavit of Mr. A.D. Sankar, the other attesting witness. The testatrix was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will.
8. One of the attesting witnesses viz. A.D. Shankar was examined as P.W.2. His evidence is that his signature is found in Ex.Pl Will as the first attesting witness. When Nagammal set her signature in Ex.Pl Will, himself and the other attesting witness were present. At that time, Nagammal's health and mental condition were sound and satisfactory. Ex.P6 is his affidavit.
9. The other attesting witness Mr. S. Kannappan was examined as P.W.3. .He would state that his signature is found in Ex.Pl Will as the second attesting witness. The testatrix is his paternal aunt. At the time of execution of 'Ex.Pl will the testatrix was in a sound and disposing state of mind and health.
10. Dr. N. Chandrasekar, a Medical Practitioner was examined as P.W.4. His evidence is that he signed in Ex.Pl as a third attesting witness. Nagammal signed in Ex.Pl in his presence. His name is written by him under his signature in Ex.P1. He does not usually put Dr. before his name while signing. Ex.Pl was executed by Nagammal in her residence. The other two attesting witnesses were also present at the time of execution of the Will.
11. Mr. B. Kandasamy was examined as D.W. 1, He would depose that the testatrix is not related to Gopal Reddiar in any way. The suit property was purchased by his brother Gopal Reddiar. The suit filed by the testatrix before the City Civil Court was decreed that the property right will be decided only after probating the Will executed by Gopal Reddiar in his favour. At the time of her appearance before the city civil court, her health was, not well and she told him that she was in a confused stale of mind. The signature of Nagammal in the proceedings before the city civil court and in the present proceedings do not tally. The signature found in Ex.Pl Will is not that of Nagammal. The suit property is under his possession and he transferred the owner ship into his name on 22.11.76 by paying the house tax arrears.
12. Advancing his arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that the immovable property which is the subject matter under Ex. P1 Will originally belonged to Gopal Reddiar; that the testatrix Nagammal was a legally wedded wife of the said Gopal Reddiar; that they had no issues; that on the death of Gopal Reddiar in 1978, the property devolved on his wife Nagammal by operation of law; that Nagammal as the exclusive owner of the property and who had the full right of alienation, executed Ex. P1 Will on 5.4.85; that the said document was attested by three witnesses viz. Mr. Sankaran, Mr.Kannappan and Mr.Chandrasekar who were examined by the plaintiff as P.Ws.2 to 4; that all the three attesting witnesses have categorically deposed that the said Nagammal was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of Ex.P1; that they were present at that time while Nagammal set her signature in the document; and they also attested the document in the presence of Nagammal; that Nagammal was suffering from asthma; that P.W.4 was a Doctor who was attending on her for the ailment; that the first defendant is the brother of Gopal Reddiar and defendants 2 and 3 are his sons; that after the death of Gopal Reddiar, the first defendant filed a original petition seeking for probate alleging that Gopal Reddiar has executed a Will bequeathing the property in his favour and apart from the same he questioned the status of Nagammal as the wife of Gopal Reddiar; that under such circumstances Nagammal was constrained to file a suit before the City Civil Court in respect of her status and as to the ownership of the property in question, wherein Nagammal was declared as the legally wedded wife of Gopal Reddiar and after disposal of the said suit Nagammal has executed the Will in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property; that after the death of Gopal Reddiar it was the plaintiff who was all along with Nagammal and took care of her and hence she has executed the said Will in favour of the plaintiff; that out of the three attesting witnesses, two have filed affidavits; that from the evidence of the attesting witnesses, it would be very clear that the testatrix has executed the Will in a sound and disposing state of mind and out of her own free will and volition and was not got under duress, fraud or undue influence or pressure or compulsion of anybody and thus Ex.P1 testament is not attended by anyone of the invalidating factors and there are no suspicious circumstances attendant on the execution of the document and that since the plaintiff has proved the due execution and attestation of Ex.Pl testament in accordance with law, the Court has to grant the letters of administration in favour of the plaintiff.
13. Vehemently opposing the contentions of for the defendants the plaintiffs side, the learned counsel for the defendents would submit that the plaintiff has not proved Ex.Pl document satisfactorily as required by law; that there are so many suspicious circumstances which were neither explained nor dispelled by the plaintiff; that the property originally belonged to Gopal Reddiar who executed in a sound and disposing state of mind, out of his free volition a Will in favour of his brother, the first defendant and his. sons, the defendants 2 and 3; that the defendants filed a Original Petition for letters of administration in the year 1986 and that was pending for a tong time, which was one known to Nagammal but she did not object to the grant of the same and letters of administration was granted in favour of the petitioners therein in 1995; that all out of the three attesting witnesses, P.W.3 Mr.Kannappan is the brother of the plaintiff; while two other attesting witnesses are his close friends; that a suit was filed by Nagammal before the city civil court seeking for declaration as to the status of the wife and in respect of the property in question and the said suit was disposed of declaring her status as wife of Gopal Reddiar, but no declaration was granted in favour of Nagammal in respect of the property, but the Court has pointed out that it was subject to the disposal of the probate proceedings filed by the first defendant herein pending in the High Court that time; that the said suit was disposed by the City Civil Court on 30.3.1985 and Ex.Pl is alleged to have been executed on 5.4.1985 within a week therefrom and the said Nagammal died on 14.5.1985; that it is an admitted fact that the testatrix who was ill was not mentally alright to execute the will; that she did not know English; that she did not know how to read and write; that none of the attesting witnesses has stated as to whether the testatrix knew the contents of the Will and hence she could not have known the contents of the Will; that the propounder was all along with the testatrix; that Ex.Pl document does not contain the signature of Nagammal; that P.W.3 has admitted that there is slight difference in the signature of the testatrix; that while the signature of Nagammal in Ex.Pl was disputed, a duty is cast upon the propounder to prove that Ex.Pl document contained the signature of Nagammal and was a true and genuine; that it is pertinent to note that the sole beneficiary under the will is the plaintiff and is not an adopted son of the testatrix, but on the contrary he has all along been with her during the earlier litigation and hence under the circumstances immediately after the earlier suit filed by Nagammal was over, it was he who got obtained Ex.Pl document under undue influence, coercion and fraud; that the testatrix was only 55 years old, who was suffering from Asthma and she died within 40 days from the execution of the Will; that Ex.Pl is an unregistered Will and hence the propounded should prove that the testatrix knew the contents of the Will; that the attesting witnesses have not spoken anything about the facts of the preparation of the Will or under whose instruction, the will was drafted; that the suit property has already been vested in the hands of the first defendant by virtue of the Will of Gopal Reddiar; that Nagammal and the plaintiff inspite of the knowledge of the Will of Gopal Reddiar have not challenged the Will and as per the judgment in O.S.No.11148 of 1978 by the City Civil Court, Nagammal has no right in the suit property, since the Will of Gopal Reddiar was already proved and letters of administration has also been issued in 1995; that the testatrix could not make a bequest in respect of the property in which she has no right and thus the plaintiff has not proved the execution or attestation of the Will; that the will was not executed by Nagammal in a sound and disposing state of mind and the plaintiff has not dispelled anyone of the suspicious circumstance and hence the suit has got to be dismissed.
14. The plaintiff has come forward with the request that Ex.Pl an unregistered Will was executed by his aunt Nagammal on 5.4.1983. Admittedly the immovable property, which is the subject matter under Ex.Pl belonged to one Gopal Reddiar, the brother of the first, defendant herein. The defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant. Nagammal filed a suit against the first defendant in O.S.No.11148 of 1978 for declaration as to her status as the wife of late Gopal Reddiar and in respect of the immovable property in question. It is an admitted position that the said suit was disposed on 30.3.1985, deciding the issue of the status of Nagammal as the legally wedded wife of late Gopal Reddiar in her favour while it was held that she was entitled to the possession of the immovable property in question subject to the decision in the pending probate proceedings in the High Court. The said judgment has also become final. Under the said circumstances the contention of the first defendant that Nagammal was not the legally wedded wife of late Gopal Reddiar cannot be countenanced.
15. The plaintiff has averred in paragraph 9 of the plaint that "his brother Kandasami Reddiar, who has filed a petition O.P.S.R. No. 11148 of 1981 for probating a Will alleged to have been executed by late Gopal Reddiar and it is still unnumbered in the Office of the High Court, Madras." The contention of the defendants' side that the said O.P. was numbered and letters of administration was granted in favour of the first defendant is not denied by the plaintiff. Thus it would be clear that letters of administration has been granted to the first defendant in respect of a Will executed by late Gopal Reddiar in favour of the first defendant1 and it is still in force. In order to prove Ex.Pl Will, it is true that the plaintiff has examined P.Ws.2 to 4 as attesting witnesses. All the three attesting witnesses have deposed that they were present when Nagammal signed Ex.Pl will and Nagammal was also present when they signed the document 'as' attesting witnesses. But when their evidence is viewed from different circumstances available in the case, it is doubtful whether they would have set their signatures in Ex.Pl document in the presence of Nagammal on 5.4.1985 as deposed by them. After careful scrutiny of the evidence both oral and documentary and the facts and circumstances in this case, the Court is of the view that there are so many suspicious circumstances attendant on "Ex.P1, testament. P.W.1 the propounder of the Will has admitted that Nagammal did not know to read and write English and she could not understand English. Ex.P1 Will is a document typed in English and it is an unregistered document. Though P.Ws.2 to 4 nave stated that they were present at the time when Nagammal signed the document, none has stated that either Nagammal knew the contents of the document or it was read over and explained to her. According to P.W.I, he was not present at the time of the execution of the document. A perusal of Ex.Pl would reveal that the said document was prepared and drafted by a person who is well conversant with English and conveyancing. It is admitted by P.W.1that he has all along been staying with Nagammal and particularly during the relevant period. No evidence is available as to who drafted the document, when and where it was drafted and who gave instructions for the preparation of the document, etc., Ex.Pl does not contain anything indicating by whom it was prepared or drafted. No one is also examined to prove those facts.
16. From the available evidence it could be seen that Nagammal was living separately and the plaintiff was the only person staying with her. In the absence of any evidence that Nagammal gave any instructions for the preparation and drafting of the Will, it should have been done only by the plaintiff herein. A perusal of Ex.Pl will would clearly reveal that without sufficient details and instructions as to the earlier proceedings pending between Nagammal and the first defendant, Ex.Pl could not have been prepared. Hence immediately after the disposal of the suit filed by Nagammal against the first defendant, the plaintiff who had thorough knowledge of the earlier proceedings should have given instructions to the person who drafted and the Will, and who in turn has prepared, got it typed and handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff who had the prominent role in the preparation of the document should have obtained the signature of Nagammal without explaining anything as to the contents therein. Hence none of the attesting wit-nesses has stated that the contents of the Will was explained to Nagammal. Without understanding the contents of the same, Nagammal reposing confidence and believing the representations of the plaintiff should have put her signature therein. In the absence of any evidence to the fact that the said Will typed in English was read over and explained to the executant it cannot be presumed that an illiterate lady like Nagammal knew or understood the contents and signed the document.
17. It is not in controversy that the suit filed by Nagammal against the first defendant was disposed of by the City Civil Court on 30.3.1985 and Ex.Pl is dated 5.4.1985 i.e. within a period of one week. Ex.Pl testament reads "on this the 5th day of April, 1985, witnesseth as follows". In this "5lh" has been subsequently written in ink. The second and third attesting witnesses have not put the date when they attested the document. But P.W.1has stated that below the signatures of all the three witnesses it was he who put "5.4.85". As already stated Ex.Pl is not a registered document. Taking into consideration the insertion of "5th" in the first page of Ex.P1 and insertion of "5.4.85" below the signatures of the second and third attesting witnesses by the first attesting witness, the Court is of the view that it would create a doubt whether the Will was created subsequently, but anti-dated as 5.4.1985. It is pertinent to note that Nagammal died on 14.5.85. At the time of Ex.P1 Nagammal was only 55 years old arid she was suffering only by Asthma, but there is no evidence to show that she was seriously ill-or any compelling circumstance to make any arrangement in respect of the property or execute a Will. It is an admitted position that the first defendant already initialed proceedings for issue of letters of administration in his favour on the basis of a Will executed by Gopal Reddiar in his favour. This fact was well within the knowledge of Nagammal and the plaintiff also. One of the recitals in Ex.P1 reads as follows:
"Whereas the Hon'ble Court has held that I am entitled to the possession of the said immovable property of my late husband and the mesne profits as well from the Said Mr. Kandasami Reddiar, but subject to the decision in the pending probate proceedings in the Madras High Court; and Whereas I am challenging the alleged Will as having been obtained by illegal means, by fraud, coercion and undue influence and hence invalid in law, void and unenforceable in law"
From the very reading of the above recital, it would be abundantly clear that the proceedings were already initiated by the first defendant for obtaining letters of administration on the basis of a Will executed by his brother Gopal Reddiar and that it was also pending and the same was also brought to the notice of the City Civil Court in the earlier proceedings between the parties. Only under such circumstances, the said Court should have held that Nagammal was entitled to possession of the said immovable property and mesne profits from the first defendant subject to the decision in the probate proceedings pending in the High Court. But Nagammal has not filed any caveat nor has she objected to the grant of letters of administration in favour of the first defendant.
18. The following recital in Ex.Pl viz.
"WHEREAS I am challenging the alleged Will as having been obtained by illegal mean's, by fraud, coercion and undue influence and hence invalid in law, void and unenforceable in law."
is against the true state of affairs and it is false also since Nagammal during her life time never challenged nor even filed any caveat petition in the proceedings filed by the first defendant. The introduction of this false recital would strengthen the doubt that Nagammal could not have been the author of Ex.Pl Will. The plaintiff has not filed the certified copies of the plaint, written statement and the judgment rendered on 30.3.1985 in O.S.No.11148 of 1978 on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court. But it is admitted by the plaintiff that Nagammal's right to the suit property shall be subject to the Will of Gopal Reddiar executed in favour of the first defendant. From the available evidence it would be very clear that even during the life time of Nagammal and even before the disposal of the suit, the first defendant has initiated proceedings for letters of administration in his favour on the basis of a will executed by Gopal Reddiar in respect of the suit property. But she did not take any steps to oppose the same. It is pertinent to note that this O.P. was filed in the year 1987 and has been pending all along. During the pendency of this proceedings, the proceedings filed by the first defendant for letters of administration was also pending. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to say that he did not know about the pendency of the proceedings initiated by the first defendant in respect of the Will executed by Gopal Reddiar in his favour either, or it was held in O.S.No.11148 of 1978 by the City Civil Court that Nagammal's right to property was subject to the decision in the probate proceedings initiated by the first defendant on the Will executed by Gopal Reddiar. The plaintiff has failed to oppose the said proceedings and has also allowed the letters of administration to be issued in favour of the first defendant on the basis of a Will executed by Gopal Reddiar. The plaintiff has also not taken any steps to set aside the order granting letters of administration in favour of the first defendant. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the defendants, the plaintiff who is the sole beneficiary under Ex.Pl was not the adopted son of the testatrix. But he has always been with her. It is not his case that he knew about the instructions, preparation, drafting, typing, execution and attestation of Ex.Pl testament. On the contrary he would plead that he did not know anything. All would go to show that the plaintiff who has all along been with the testatrix got Ex.Pl drafted as per his instructions, typed it and obtained the signature of Nagammal without her understanding the contents of the same.
19. The Apex Court has held in the decision reported in Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti and others, as follows:
"A Will is one of the most solemn documents known to taw. The executant of the Will cannot be called to deny the execution or to explain the circumstances in which it was executed. Il is, therefore, essential that trust worthy and unimpeachable evidence should be produced before the court to establish genuineness and authenticity of the Will. It must be stated that the factum of execution and validity of the will cannot be determined merely by considering the evidence produced by the propounder. In order to judge the credibility of witnesses and disengage the truth from falsehood the court is not confined only to their testimony and demeanour. It would be open to the court to consider circumstances brought out in evidence or which appear from the nature and contents of the documents itself. It would be also open to the court to took into surrounding circumstances as well as inherent improbabilities of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the evidence adduced by the party."
It is true that the plaintiff has examined three witnesses viz. P.Ws.2 to 4 who spoke about Nagammal signing the document and themselves signing the document in the presence of Nagammal. The Court is of the considered view that in the absence of any proof that the typed matter under Ex.Pl was read over and explained to the illiterate Nagammal and she set her signature, after understanding the same, it can be said that the signature of Nagammal was obtained in Ex.Pl Will without her knowledge as to the nature, extent and character of the disposition made under the document.
20. In the decision reported in Indu Bala Base and others v. Mahindra Chandra Base and another, the Apex Court held thus:
"The mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will by S. 63 of the Succession Act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where however there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the court accepts the will as genuine. Even where circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signatures of the testator, the condition of the testator's mine!, the dispositions made in the will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances, or there might be other indications in the will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator.
If the propounder himself takes a prominent part in the execution of the will which confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence."
The Court is of the view that in the instant case the mere evidence putforth by the plaintiff that Nagammal signed the document in the presence of the witnesses and the witnesses signed in the presence of Nagammal would not be sufficient to hold that the said document was executed by Nagammal freely, voluntarily and after knowing the contents therein. On the contrary from the available evidence, it can be well stated that Ex.Pl testament does not express' the mind of the testatrix and it was prepared under" highly suspicious circumstances. It is well settled that the true test in a case like this is whether the evidence put forth by the propounder of the Will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the propounder who sets up the will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the Will. The Court is of the firm view that the plaintiff propounder who is the sole beneficiary under the Will without whose prominent role the Will could not have come into existence has not discharged his burden. The available evidence would indicate that Ex.Pl Will was prepared under vitiating circumstances. As narrated above, when the various circumstances involved in the present case viz., the illiteracy of the testatrix, the contents of the Will in English, the narration of the facts of the earlier proceedings, the non-availability of evidence as to the instructions by the testatrix for drafting or preparation of the testament, and the introduction of false recitals in the document, are cumulatively taken into consideration, the Court is of the view that the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses could not be accepted. Taking into consideration of the above, the Court has no hesitation to hold that Ex.Pl testament was brought under suspicious circumstances.
21. The Apex Court has held in the decision reported in Gurdial Kaur and others v. Kartar Kaur and others, as follows:
"The law is well stated that the conscience of the Court must be satisfied that the will in question was not only executed and attested in the manner required under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 but it should also be found that the said will was the product of-the free volition of the executant who had voluntarily executed the same after knowing and understanding the contents of the will. Therefore, whenever there is any suspicious circumstance, the obligation is cast on the propounder of the will to dispel suspicious circumstance."
22. It has been held in the decision reported in Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur and others, as follows:
"Then the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the will was duly executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will.....The will has been typed out on both sides of a single foolscap paper and is obviously drafted by a lawyer. No evidence at all has been led as to who drafted the will and who typed it out. The will uses some trite legal jargon but it does not show where it was executed. "
Applying the tests and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the a forestated decisions, the Court has to necessarily state that the plaintiff has not proved the truth and genuineness of Ex.P1 testament nor has he satisfied the conscience of the Court.
It is true that the plaintiff has made an attempt that Ex.P1 was executed and attested in the manner required under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. But he has not proved that the said Will was the product of the free volition of the executant who had voluntarily executed the same after knowing and understanding the contents of the Will. Therefore it remains to be stated that the propounder plaintiff has not dispelled the suspicious circumstances attendant on the preparation, execution and attestation of the Will and apart from that the Will was a product of the free volition of Nagammal who had voluntarily executed the same after knowing and understanding the contents of the Will. For the reasons stated and discussions made above, the Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has not proved Ex.P1 testament as required by law and hence he is not entitled to the relief as asked for. The above issues are answered accordingly.
23. In the result, this suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.