(Prayer: To grant the Letters of Administration with the Will annexed to the petitioner as the beneficiary allotee under the Will of the said deceased having effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu.)

1. This Original Petition has been filed under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in respect of the Last Will and Testament dated 13.01.2011 executed by the deceased, Ms. S. Saguntha Roja.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the deceased was her maternal aunt, namely, the sister of the petitioner's mother. The deceased died a spinster and issueless on 21.06.2011. According to the petitioner, there are no other surviving legal heirs of the deceased and she, being the daughter of the deceased's sister, is the only legal heir. It is stated that the deceased executed a registered Will dated 13.01.2011, registered as Document No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Sub- Registrar Office, Arcot, bequeathing the property described in the schedule to the petition in favour of the petitioner. Since no executor was appointed under the Will, the present petition has been filed seeking Letters of Administration with the Will annexed.

3. The petitioner has stated that the delay in approaching this Court was due to lack of knowledge regarding the procedure for obtaining Letters of Administration and also on account of her being a senior citizen.

4. There is no respondent in the petition. Notice was issued to the Collector and citation was published in the Tamil daily “Maalai Murasu” on 24.04.2026 and in the English daily “Trinity Mirror” on 03.05.2026. No objection or caveat was received.

5. The petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. Ex.P1 is the original registered Will dated 13.01.2011; Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 31.05.2004; Ex.P3 is the death certificate of the deceased; Ex.P4 is the photocopy of the Aadhaar card of the petitioner; Ex.P5 is the newspaper publication; and Ex.P6 is the affidavit of assets. One Mr. Balaji was examined as P.W.2 and his Aadhaar card was marked as Ex.P7.

6. On 13.08.2026, this Court directed the petitioner to clarify whether the deceased had any brothers or sisters apart from the petitioner's mother and to produce the legal heirship certificate of the deceased. The petitioner was also directed to clarify the exact relationship of P.W.2 with the deceased, since P.W.2 had described the deceased as his grandmother and the petitioner as his paternal aunt. Despite opportunities granted thereafter, the said particulars and documents were not produced.

7. Insofar as Will is concerned, Ex.P1 shows that the testatrix had affixed her left thumb impression, having specifically recited that, though she had previously been signing her name, she was affixing her thumb impression owing to her health condition. However, P.W.2 deposed that the deceased had signed the Will in his presence. This inconsistency assumes significance, particularly when P.W.2 is the only witness examined to prove the attestation of the Will.

8. Further, P.W.2 claimed that he was the fourth attesting witness. However, the fourth attesting witness shown in Ex.P1 is one C. Mani, son of Chinnappa Naicker. P.W.2 also named “Velmurugan, Rajasekar and Mani” as the other attesting witnesses, whereas no person by name Rajasekar is shown as an attesting witness in Ex.P1.

9. More importantly, the English translation of the Will filed by the petitioner describes the fifth attesting witness as “S. Shiva, son of Sadhanantham”, whereas P.W.2 is Balaji, son of Sadhanantham. Thus, even the translation produced by the petitioner does not identify P.W.2 as the fifth attesting witness. Consequently, the very identity of P.W.2 as one of the attesting witnesses to Ex.P1 remains in doubt.

10. It is also seen that the affidavit filed as the “Affidavit of Attesting Witness” was sworn to by Mrs. S. Rajeswari Sadhanandam. However, Ex.P1 shows that she was only an identifying witness before the Sub-Registrar and not an attesting witness to the Will. She was also not examined before the Court.

11. Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 does not satisfactorily establish that he is one of the attesting witnesses to Ex.P1. When the identity of the witness examined to prove the Will as an attesting witness itself remains doubtful and his evidence does not correspond with the particulars found in the original Will, the due execution and attestation of the Will cannot be held to have been proved in accordance with law.

12. Though Ex.P1 is a registered Will, registration by itself does not dispense with the requirement of proving its due execution and attestation. On the evidence available, this Court is not satisfied that the Will dated 13.01.2011 has been duly proved in accordance with law.

13. In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.