(Prayer: That Letter of Administration with the Will annexed thereto may be granted to him as he is son of the testator's Wife's brother and legatee under the Will of the deceased having effect limited to the State of Tamil nadu only for the property mentioned in the affidavit of assets and liabilities Gross amount of Rs.29,25,000/- Net Amount of Rs.29,25,000/- Suc.duty of Rs.25,000/- paid on 06.08.2025 by e-C/F D.No.31302/2025.)

1. This Original Petition has been filed seeking grant of Letters of Administration with the Will dated 28.06.2007 executed by late P.S. Lakshmanan annexed thereto, in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the immovable property. The Will was registered as Document No.107 of 2007 in Book III in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sembium, Chennai. The testator died on 24.07.2010 at Chennai.

2. The petitioner has stated that the deceased had no issues and that his wife Suguna, whom he describes as the deceased's only heir, had predeceased him on 28.11.2001. The petitioner has further stated that S. Padmanabhan and S. Raghavendhran were the younger brothers of late Suguna and that he is the son of S. Padmanabhan and thus the son of the testator's wife's brother. According to the petitioner, except the persons referred to in the petition, there was no other person interested in the estate and he is the sole beneficiary under the Will.

3. The petitioner has also averred that, due to the efflux of time and the deaths of the other Class II heirs, he became the sole beneficiary, and on that basis has contended that his right to prove the Will should not be denied. Though the petition initially stated that no executor had been appointed, the petitioner's proof affidavit records that his father, S. Padmanabhan, had been appointed as the sole executor under the Will and that he died on 21.02.2018 without obtaining probate.

4. General citation was ordered and publication was effected in the Tamil daily “Malai Murasu” on 07.10.2025 and in the English daily “Trinity Mirror” on 22.10.2025. On 29.10.2025, the learned Master verified the affidavit of service, recorded completion of service and also recorded that no objection was raised pursuant to the publication.

5. The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 on 17.11.2025 and marked Exs.P1 to P17. Ex.P1 is the original Will dated 28.06.2007. Ex.P2 is the death certificate of the testator and Ex.P3 is the death certificate of Suguna. Exs.P8 and P10 are the death certificates of the two attesting witnesses, R. Gurumurthy and B. Santhinathan. Ex.P16 is the affidavit of assets showing the net value of the estate as Rs.29,25,000/-.

6. Since both the attesting witnesses had died, the petitioner filed A.No.613 of 2026 seeking reopening of his evidence for examination of a third-party witness. The application was allowed on 05.02.2026. Thereafter, G. Raghavendran was examined as P.W.2 on 27.02.2026. P.W.2 stated that he was acquainted with the signature of the testator and identified the signature of P.S. Lakshmanan in Ex.P1. He did not, however, identify or prove the handwriting or signature of either of the attesting witnesses.

7. By order dated 31.08.2026, this Court specifically noticed the above deficiency and recorded that, both attesting witnesses being dead, the Will had to be proved by establishing not only the signature of the testator but also that the attestation of at least one attesting witness was in the handwriting of that witness. It was further held that proof of the testator's signature alone could not substitute proof of attestation. Therefore this court provided the opportunity for the necessary compliance. However , the petitioner has not complied with the order of this court .

8. In the present case, P.W.2 has identified only the signature of the testator. There is no evidence proving the handwriting or signature of either R. Gurumurthy or B. Santhinathan . The mere fact that Ex.P1 is a registered Will does not dispense with the statutory requirement of proving its attestation in the manner contemplated under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

9. Insofar as the petitioner's averment regarding Class II heirs is concerned, succession to the estate of the deceased P.S. Lakshmanan, being a male Hindu, would be governed by Sections 8 and 9 read with the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, the petitioner has not set out the complete genealogy of the testator or furnished particulars of his parents, brothers, sisters or their descendants. Therefore, the averment that the persons referred to in the petition were the Class II heirs and that, upon their deaths, the petitioner became the sole beneficiary cannot, on the materials available, be treated as establishing the legal heirs or persons having caveatable interest in the estate.

10. However, the petitioner fails on the statutory requirement relating to proof of the Will, which was specifically brought to the notice of the petitioner and remained uncomplied with, it is unnecessary to render any final finding on the question of Class II heirs or caveatable interest.

11. In view of the above, this Court is unable to grant Letters of Administration, as the mandatory requirement for proof of the Will remains unsatisfied despite an opportunity having been granted for compliance.

12. Accordingly, O.P.No.377 of 2025 is dismissed. No order as to costs.