(Prayer: Original Petition is filed under Sections 232 & 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Order XXV Rule 5 of the O.S. Rules, praying that Letters of Administration with the certified copy of the Will annexed may be granted to the petitioner as the son, is the ultimate beneficiary under the Will of the said deceased K.N.Ramachandra Rao, to have effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. Gross Amount of Rs.1,23,75,000/- and Net Amount of Rs.1,23,75,000/- Suc.duty of Rs.25,000/- paid on 08.11.2024 by C/F D.No.42980/2024.)

1. The petitioner, K.R. Sridhar, son of late K.N. Ramachandran, has filed the present petition under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Order XXV Rule 5 of the Original Side Rules, seeking grant of Letters of Administration with the certified copy of the Will dated 04.03.1996 annexed thereto. The petitioner is residing in the United States of America and is represented by his mother and Power of Attorney holder, Kamala Ramachandran. The respondents are R. Indumathy, daughter of the deceased; S.G. Mayasre, granddaughter of the deceased through his predeceased daughter Sarumathy Gopinath; and Kamala Ramachandran, wife of the deceased.

2. According to the petitioner, K.N. Ramachandran died on 19.05.2002 while ordinarily residing at No.22, Kannagi Street, Madipakkam, Chennai, leaving behind properties acquired out of his self-earnings. His elder daughter, Sarumathy Gopinath, subsequently died on 31.01.2023 leaving behind her daughter, S.G. Mayasre. The deceased was ordinarily residing within the jurisdiction of this Court and the properties forming part of the estate are situated within Tamil Nadu.

3. It is averred that K.N. Ramachandran executed his last Will and Testament dated 04.03.1996, registered as Document No.12 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Velachery, Chennai. As the original Will could not be traced despite diligent search, the petitioner has produced its certified copy and has undertaken to produce the original if subsequently recovered. It is further stated that both the attesting witnesses to the Will had died and, therefore, a third-party affidavit of S. Gopinath was filed for identifying the signature of the testator.

4. Since the petitioner is employed in the United States of America, he executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of his mother, Kamala Ramachandran, which was registered as Document No.93/23/ADS dated 04.09.2023 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Velachery.

5. The value of the estate is stated to be Rs.1,23,75,000/-, with no subsisting debts. The petitioner has undertaken to duly administer the estate and to file the inventory and accounts within the prescribed period. It is further stated that all the next of kin and persons interested in the estate have been impleaded, no caveat is pending and no previous application for Letters of Administration, with or without the Will, has been made before any other Court. The petitioner has therefore prayed for grant of Letters of Administration with the certified copy of the Will annexed, to have effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.

6. Before the learned Additional Master-II, the third respondent, Kamala Ramachandra Rao, who is also the Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner, was examined as P.W.1 on 01.08.2025. Exs.P1 to P7 were marked through her. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the Will; the remaining documents relate, inter alia, to the death and legal heirship of the testator, the death and legal heirship of Sarumathy, the Power of Attorney and the title deed relating to the property.

7. During the course of the proceedings, certain discrepancies were noticed with regard to the particulars of the Will, appointment of an executor, nonproduction of the original Will and the nature of the interest created under the Will. By order dated 30.03.2026, the petitioner was directed to clarify those matters in a supplementary affidavit. Pursuant thereto, the supplementary affidavit was filed. On 06.07.2026, this Court, after considering the explanation, recorded that the discrepancies earlier pointed out had been sufficiently explained and granted the petitioner an opportunity to prove the Will in accordance with law. The matter was therefore referred to the learned Master for recording further evidence, with a specific direction that the petitioner should adduce such evidence as was required to satisfy Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, on or before 29.07.2026.

8. The records thereafter show that when the matter was listed before the learned Master on 14.07.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. On 15.07.2026, an adjournment was sought for recording the evidence of the third-party witness. On 23.07.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the matter be relisted before this Court. Thus, notwithstanding the opportunity specifically granted on 06.07.2026, no further evidence was recorded before the learned Master. When the matter came before this Court on 30.07.2026, learned counsel sought one more opportunity for recording evidence. Having regard to the opportunities already granted, the request was declined by this court.

9. Admission of Ex.P1, the certified copy of the Will, as evidence of the contents of the Will does not, by itself, establish its due execution and attestation. A Will must ordinarily be proved in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Where no attesting witness can be found, the propounder must establish the death or genuine non-availability of the attesting witnesses and thereafter resort to the mode of proof prescribed under Section 69. Section 69 requires proof that the attestation of at least one attesting witness is in his handwriting and that the signature of the executant is in the handwriting of the executant. Thus, proof of the contents of the Will and proof of its due execution and attestation are distinct requirements.

10. In the present case, both the attesting witnesses to the Will are stated to have died. The petitioner sought to rely upon S. Gopinath, a third-party witness, and filed A.No.1291 of 2026 seeking acceptance of his affidavit for identification of the signature of the testator in the place of the attesting witnesses. While considering the said application, this Court specifically noticed that the proposed evidence related only to identification of the testator's signature and that there was no proper averment regarding the handwriting or signatures of the attesting witnesses or the evidentiary basis upon which their attestation could be proved through the proposed witness and dismissed the said application.

11. Thereafter, by order dated 06.07.2026, notwithstanding the affidavit already filed, the petitioner was specifically afforded a further opportunity to adduce evidence before the learned Master so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 69. The petitioner was not examined any other person acquainted with the handwriting or signature of either of the attesting witnesses. The certified copy produced does not contain identifiable signatures. There is also no evidence on record from any person who had seen the original Will or who was present at its execution and attestation. Thus, no evidence has been adduced to prove that the attestation of at least one of the attesting witnesses is in his handwriting, as mandatorily required under Section 69. Where a grant is sought on the basis of a copy of a lost Will, the testamentary character of the document must still be independently established in accordance with Sections 63(c), 68 and 69.

12. The consent affidavits filed by the respondents cannot cure this defect. In testamentary jurisdiction, the Court is required to satisfy itself that the Will has been proved in accordance with law, irrespective of whether the persons having caveatable interest oppose the grant. Consent or absence of objection cannot substitute the statutory proof of execution and attestation.

13. In these circumstances, though the explanation regarding the loss of the original Will and the other discrepancies have been explained, the essential requirement of proving the Will remains unsatisfied. The petitioner has failed to establish due execution and attestation of the Will in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

14. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant sought. O.P.No.620 of 2024 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.