(Prayer: The Original Petition has been filed under Section 232, 255 and 276 of Indian Succession Act read with Order XXV Rule 5 of Original Side Rules praying that Letters of Administration with the Will annexed may be granted to him as the son/beneficiary named under the Will of the deceased to have effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu.)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 232, 255 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act to grant Letters of Administration to the petitioner to the estates and credits of the deceased having effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu.

2. After filing of this petition, this Court directed the petitioner to effect paper publication in any one of the issues of Tamil Daily and also in English daily and the paper publication was also effected and there is no any objection from any party. Thereafter, the case was posted for recording evidence and the evidence was also recorded. On the side of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P10 were marked.

3. According to the petitioner, he and the respondents are the sons and daughters of one Mr. R. Evanandam. The said Mr. R. Evanandam was the legal heir of one Mr. Ratnam and the schedule described property belonged to said Mr. Rathnam. The said Mr. Ratnam died intestate leaving behind his sons and daughers namely i) R. Evanandam, ii) R. Sadhanandam, iii) R. Arputhanandam, iv) R. Matilda Chandra and v) Esther Kapalapushanam. After the demise of said Mr. Ratnam, the said property was inherited by the above said Class-I legal heirs of Mr. Ratnam. The brothers and sisters of R. Evanandam had released their respective 1/5 share in the property in favour of R. Evanandam vide two separate release deeds dated 29.12.1949 and 18.05.1950. Thus, the deceased Mr. R. Evanandam became the sole and absolute owner of the schedule property. The wife of said R. Evanandam predeceased him and Mr. R. Evanandam died on 07.11.1993 leaving behind him i) Mercy Jayakantham - daughter (1st respondent), Fredric Devanandam - Son (2nd respondent), E.T. Kirubanandam - Son (petitioner), Sylvester Karunanandam - son (3rd respondent) and Priscilla Thiruthuvarani - daughter (4th respondent). The deceased R. Evanandam, during his life time, executed a Will on 14.02.1987, whereby, he had bequeathed the schedule mentioned property in favour of the petitioner and he allotted his other self acquired property at Thirunindravoor in favour of the other daughters and sons. The deceased R. Evanandam has not appointed any executor in the Will. The parents of the deceased R. Evanandam, predeceased him. The petitioner is the only beneficiary named in the Will in respect of the schedule mentioned property.

4. The amount of assets which are likely to come into the hands of the petitioner is approximately Rs.25,00,000/-. Except the petitioner and the respondents, there is no other next of kin to the deceased. As one of the attesting witnesses reported dead, one Mrs. A. Shamini, wife of Mr. Edwin Joseph Davis Machael has been examined as PW2 and she has filed an affidavit identifying the signatures of the deceased R. Evanandam and the signature of Mr. G.P. Arputharaj, one of the attesting witnesses.

5. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 were marked. PW1 has reiterated the petition averments and further stated that the deceased executed a Will dated 14.02.1987 in the presence of the attesting witnesses.

6. The Will dated 14.02.1987 is more than 35 years old Will, which was executed by the deceased Mr. R. Evanandam in the presence of two attesting witnesses. The original Will has been marked as Ex.P.2 by PW1. Since the Will is a 35 years old document and it has been produced from proper custody, a presumption under Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act is available. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Marathal (died) and another vs. Kanniammal (died) and others reported in 2024 SCC Online Mad 5153 wherein it has been held that "....insofar as the "Will" is concerned, if attesting witnesses are available, then they should be examined in terms of Section 68 of Evidence Act, if the witness is not available, then route under Sections 69 to 71 is available to the profounder, if the 'Will' is more than 30 years old and produced from proper custody, Section 90 is available to the Court to draw a presumption regarding its "due execution"and "attestation" and if the 'Will' is more than 30 years old and produced from proper custody, it is shown that the attesting witnesses are alive and not produced before the Court, it may resort to presumption under Section 114 illustration (g) instead of one under Section 90 of Evidence Act".

7. In this case, one Mrs. A. Shamini, who is acquainted with the signature of one of the attestors namely Mr. G.P. Arputharaj, has been examined as PW2. She has deposed that the deceased Mr. R. Evanandam is her grandfather and she has seen the Will executed by him and she is well acquainted with the signature of her grandfather / Testator Mr. R. Evanandam, that the first attesting witness to the said Will is her father Mr. G.P. Arputharaj and her father died on 27.06.2010 and the second attesting witness Dr. V. Gladstone Vijayakumar is her father's elder sister's only son, that she is also well acquainted with the signature of the said second attesting witness and the said Dr. V. Gladstone Vijayakumar also passed away. A perusal of evidences of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 revealed that the petitioner and the respondents are the legal heirs of the deceased and no any objection has been raised by any other party to grant letter of administration to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner, through the evidences and documents, has amply proved the execution of Will. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the petition.

8. Therefore, this Original Petition is allowed and Letter of Administration, to the estates and credits of the deceased Mr. R. Evanandam in favour of the petitioner, is granted.

9. Issue Letters of Administration in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to duly administer the properties and credits of the deceased more fully described in the schedule. The petitioner is also directed to execute a security bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in favour of the Assistant Registrar (O.S.II), High Court, Madras. The petitioner is further directed to render true and correct accounts once in a year.