(Prayer: That Letters of Administration with the Will annexed may be granted to the petitioner, being the vested holder and sole beneficiary, under the Will dated 06.04.1970 of the said Dr.S.Anantharamakrishnan Iyer, having effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.)

1. This petition has been filed by A. Harihara Subramanian, the greatgrandson of the deceased testator, Dr. S. Anantharamakrishnan Iyer, under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Order XXV Rule 5 of the Original Side Rules, seeking the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in respect of the Will dated 06.04.1970 executed by the testator, who died on 08.06.1971.

2. The Petition in brief: The testator, Dr S. Anantharamakrishnan Iyer, resided at Kilambur Village, Ambasamuthram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, and died there on 08.06.1971. He was possessed of the House, Ground and Premises bearing No. B-142, T.S. No. 38, 10th Avenue, Kodambakkam Pudur, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083 (“the schedule property”), having purchased it from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. He was also possessed of certain other properties in Tirunelveli District, most of which, according to the Affidavit of Assets, were sold by him during his lifetime and do not form part of the estate now in question.

3. The testator's wife, A. Thangammal @ Thangathamal, survived the testator and died on 13.03.1982. Two sons were born to the testator and his wife: A. Subramanian (elder) and A. Devanarayanan (younger).

4. A. Subramanian was married to S. Meenakshi. A. Subramanian died on 14.12.2019, and S. Meenakshi died on 23.09.2021. They left behind two sons and two daughters: Rajamani @ S. Anantharamakrishnan (the Petitioner's father), S. Raman (3rd Respondent), Dharmambal (4th Respondent) and Seethalakshmi (5th Respondent).

5. A. Devanarayanan, the younger son, is stated to have died on 8.6.1971, leaving behind him his wife and 3 sons, namely D. Sitalakshmi (6th Respondent), D. Anantharamakrishnan (7th Respondent), D. Venkatesan (8th Respondent) and D. Thaila Subramanian (9th Respondent).

6. Rajamani @ S. Anantharamakrishnan (the Petitioner's father) married A. Kalaivani (1st Respondent). Two children were born to them: A. Thangam (2nd Respondent, daughter) and the Petitioner (son, born 28.07.1999). Rajamani died on 25.11.2007.

7. The Petitioner pleads that the testator, by his Will dated 06.04.1970, bequeathed the schedule property to his grandson Rajamani @ S. Anantharamakrishnan for his lifetime, with the property to pass on Rajamani's death absolutely to Rajamani's male heirs. The Petitioner pleads that he is the only male heir of Rajamani, and is accordingly the sole beneficiary entitled to the property in absolute right. No executor was appointed under the Will.

8. The petitioner has further stated that the Will further records that if Rajamani was a minor at the testator's death, the property was to be managed by the testator's wife Thangathammal (or, if she predeceased the testator, by A. Subramanian) for certain charitable purposes until Rajamani attained majority; and that Rajamani, and after him his male heirs, were to hold the property subject to periodical charitable obligations — annual abishekams and archanais at named temples (Karutha Vinayagar Temple, Keelambur; Sivasailapathy Azhagappa Mandakapadi; Keelambur Sivasailanatha Swami; Thiruchendur Subramaniya Swamy; the family's Kula Theivam at North Karukanchi Kulathagarai Sastha; Chidambaram Nataraja Temple), specified sums for the testator's and his wife's funeral expenses, and specified annual sums for Sumangali Pooja and Sirantham.

9. The Petitioner pleads that the original Will, which had been in the custody of his grandfather A. Subramanian, was misplaced with other documents and could not be traced despite best efforts, and that, since the Will was a registered document, its certified copy is being filed and relied upon.

10. The petitioner further pleads, and the Affidavit of Assets sworn on 30.11.2022 states, that the gross value of the estate coming to the Petitioner's hands does not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/-, and that after permissible deductions (funeral expenses of Rs. 10,000/-), the net value of the estate is Rs. 49,90,000/-.

11. The petitioner further undertakes that he shall duly administer the property and credits of the deceased, pay debts and legacies, exhibit a true inventory before this Court within six months of grant, and render a true account within one year.

12. The Petitioner, therefore, prays that Letters of Administration with the Will annexed may be granted to the Petitioner, being the vested holder and sole beneficiary, under the Will dated 06.04.1970 of the said Dr. S. Anantharamakrishnan Iyer, since deceased, having effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, and thus render justice.

13. Notice was ordered to Respondents 1 to 9. Respondents 1 and 2 (the Petitioner's mother and sister) entered appearance. Each filed a Consent Affidavit dated 30.11.2022 (marked Ex.P12 and Ex.P14 respectively) stating that the testator bequeathed the schedule property to the Petitioner absolutely and that they have no objection to grant of Letters of Administration in his favour.

14. Respondents 3 to 9 court notice was ordered. The Bailiff, in his report dated 09.09.2024, stated that the Court notices were returned/unserved as the respondents had vacated the premises. By order dated 05.11.2024 in A.No.5675 of 2024, the learned Master permitted substituted service by paper publication in the Tamil daily “Malai Murasu”. Since publication was instead effected in “Makkal Kural” (Ex.P8), by order dated 17.12.2024, fresh publication was directed in “Malai Murasu” or “Malaimalar”, and the same was effected in “Malai Murasu” on 31.12.2024 (Ex.P9). By order dated 28.04.2025, the learned Master recorded that service on all the respondents stood completed. Thereafter, general publication was effected in the Tamil daily “Makkal Kural” on 08.07.2025 (Ex.P11) and the English daily “Trinity Mirror” on 17.07.2025 (Ex.P10). On 01.08.2025, the learned Master recorded that the general publication had been duly effected, service stood completed and no objections were raised.

15. Before the Learned Master, on the petitioner’s side, five witnesses were examined and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked. Respondents 1 and 2 entered the witness box as P.Ws.2 and 3 and supported the petition. P.W.1, A. Harihara Subramanian, the petitioner, examined and marked Exs.P1 to P11. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the Will dated 06.04.1970; Ex.P2 is the death certificate of the testator recording his death on 08.06.1971; Ex.P3 is the death certificate of A. Thangammal; Ex.P4 is the death certificate of S. Anantharamakrishnan @ Rajamani, the petitioner’s father; Ex.P5 is the petitioner’s birth certificate; Ex.P6 is the legal heir certificate dated 03.09.2014 relating to Rajamani @ S. Anantharamakrishnan; Ex.P7 is the Affidavit of Assets dated 30.11.2022; and Exs.P8 to P11 are the paper publications.

16. P.W.2, A. Kalaivani, the 1st respondent and mother of the petitioner, examined on 09.09.2025, supported the petition and marked her Consent Affidavit as Ex.P12 and Aadhaar card as Ex.P13. P.W.3, A. Thangam, the 2nd respondent and sister of the petitioner, also examined on 09.09.2025, supported the petition and marked her Consent Affidavit as Ex.P14 and Aadhaar card as Ex.P15.

17. P.W.4, K. Paramasivam (third party witness), examined on 23.03.2026, deposed that he was a schoolmate of the petitioner’s father and was acquainted with the testator and his signature, having seen the testator sign a pocket account-book maintained in connection with milk supplied to his household. On being shown the certified copy of the Will, he identified the signature therein as that of the testator. He further stated that the attesting witnesses, Sankara Mudaliar and Isakki Konar, had died in 2001 and 2005 respectively and that their relatives were not traceable. He did not, however, identify the handwriting or signatures of either attesting witness. His Aadhaar card was marked as Ex.P16.

18. P.W.5, A. Prammanayagam (third party witness) , examined on 23.03.2026, deposed substantially on the same lines as P.W.4 and identified the signature of the testator found in the certified copy of the Will. He also did not identify the handwriting or signatures of either attesting witness. His Aadhaar card was marked as Ex.P17.

19. On this Court's direction dated 23.06.2026 to explain the loss of the original Will and the present status of the property, the Petitioner filed a further affidavit sworn on 29.06.2026 pleading that the Will dated 06.04.1970 was a registered Will, registered as Document No.17 of 1970 on the file of the Sub- Registrar Office, Ambasamudram. According to the petitioner, the original Will was in the custody of his grandfather, A. Subramanian, who had subsequently lost the same, and despite efforts, it could not be traced. Since the Will was a registered document, the petitioner was under the impression that probate or Letters of Administration was not required. It is stated that only upon obtaining legal advice in connection with another matter, the petitioner came to know of the necessity to obtain probate or Letters of Administration with the Will annexed. The delay in approaching this Court is thus explained as neither wilful nor wanton; that the Petitioner and his family have all along been in possession of the schedule property; and that Respondents 1 and 2 (who have a caveatable interest as heirs) support the petition, while Respondents 3 to 9 (who also have a caveatable interest) have been proceeded against by paper publication and are set ex parte.

20. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

21. The following points arise for consideration:

                (i) whether the due execution and attestation of the Will dated 06.04.1970 stand proved in the manner required by law?

                (ii) whether the delay of over five decades between the testator's death and the filing of this petition has been satisfactorily explained

                (iii) whether the Petitioner is entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed.

Points No (i) to (iii):

22. The petition has been presented under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. As the petitioner relies on a certified copy and pleads that the original Will has been lost, the claim must also satisfy Section 237 of the Act. A mistaken reference to a statutory provision is not, by itself, fatal where the facts pleaded disclose the nature of the relief; nevertheless, the petitioner must establish every condition required for a limited grant under Section 237.

23. The Will is stated to have been executed on 06.04.1970, and the testator is stated to have died on 08.06.1971. The petition was filed on 21.12.2022, more than fifty-one years after the testator's death. Such delay does not, by itself, dispense with adjudication on the merits, but the extraordinary and unexplained lapse of time calls for scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the preservation, use and subsequent loss of the Will.

24. The petitioner is the testator's great-grandson and claims to be the sole beneficiary under the Will. The genealogy and the dates set out in the petition also require clarification. Paragraph 11 states that the testator, Dr S. Ananthakrishna Iyer, had two sons, A. Subramani and A. Devanarayanan; however, paragraph 6(b) records that A. Devanarayanan died on 08.06.1971, which is also stated to be the date of the testator's death. This apparent inconsistency has not been satisfactorily explained.

25. The Will is also said to impose obligations in favour of Tiruchendur Subramania Swamy Temple and Karutha Vinayagar Temple at Keelambur. Therefore, Section 100 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 applies if the dispositions constitute bequests in favour of those religious institutions. Under that provision, a copy of the Will must be forwarded to the competent Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, and no probate or letters of administration with the Will annexed can be granted unless the Court is satisfied that this requirement has been complied with.

26. Section 237 of the Indian Succession Act permits probate of a copy or draft where the Will has been lost or mislaid since the testator's death, or destroyed by wrong or accident, not by any act of the testator, and a copy or draft has been preserved. The grant is limited until the original or a properly authenticated copy is produced. In the present petition, it is merely averred that the original Will was misplaced and could not be traced. The petition does not state when, where, or in whose custody it was last seen; whether it continued to exist after the testator's death; when its loss was discovered; what searches were undertaken; or the circumstances in which the certified copy was obtained and preserved. The foundational facts necessary to invoke Section 237 have, therefore, not been established.

27. Admission of a certified copy as secondary evidence of the contents of the Will does not, by itself, prove its due execution and attestation. A Will must ordinarily be proved in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Where no attesting witness can be found, the propounder must first establish the death or genuine non-availability of the attesting witnesses. It must thereafter comply with Section 69 by proving that the attestation of at least one attesting witness is in that witness's handwriting.

28. In the present case, it is stated that both attesting witnesses have died without issue. More importantly, no person acquainted with the handwriting or signature of at least one attesting witness and of the testator has been examined. Nor has any witness who saw the original Will or was present at its execution and attestation been examined. The certified copy produced does not contain identifiable signatures. Thus, neither due execution and attestation nor the statutory basis for admitting the copy in place of the original has been proved.

29. The petitioner has consequently failed to satisfy the requirements of Sections 63(c), 232 and 237 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Compliance with Section 100 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 has also not been demonstrated. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected applications, if any, stand closed.