Election under a will bars repudiation of its validity after accepting benefits, and probate cannot be opposed on that basis.

Acceptance of a benefit under a will constitutes an election to take under the entire testamentary instrument, and the doctrines of approbation and reprobation bar a beneficiary from accepting legacies while opposing probate. The court found the will of 21 August 1997 duly executed and proved through the propounder and an attesting witness, with the testatrix's signature identified. It further held that the defendants, having accepted specific benefits and expressly accepted the will in writing, were not entitled to challenge it. The plea of undue influence also failed because no sustainable proof remained once the defendants had acted upon the will.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Will dated 21 August 1997 was legally and validly executed and proved; (ii) whether the defendants, having accepted specific benefits under the Will, were entitled to oppose probate; (iii) whether the Will was shown to have been procured by undue influence.

Issue (i): Whether the Will dated 21 August 1997 was legally and validly executed and proved.

Analysis: The Will was supported by the testimony of the propounder and an attesting witness, and the execution and signature of the testatrix were identified. The challenge to the Will failed once the defendants' conduct showed acceptance of benefits under the same instrument.

Conclusion: The Will was legally and validly executed and proved in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendants, having accepted specific benefits under the Will, were entitled to oppose probate.

Analysis: A person who accepts a benefit under a testamentary instrument must adopt the whole of it and cannot affirm the beneficial parts while repudiating the rest. Acceptance of a legacy under a Will operates as an election under Sections 187 and 188 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the doctrines of approbation and reprobation bar a contrary challenge where the benefit is not one that would arise on intestacy. The defendants had accepted specific legacies and had also expressly accepted the Will in writing.

Conclusion: The defendants were not entitled to oppose probate after accepting benefits under the Will, and this was against the defendants.

Issue (iii): Whether the Will was shown to have been procured by undue influence.

Analysis: The plea of undue influence could not survive once the defendants had elected to take benefits under the Will and had acted upon it. No sustainable proof of undue influence remained to be established on the record.

Conclusion: Undue influence was not proved, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The probate petition succeeded because the Will was proved and the defendants, having accepted benefits under it, were barred from challenging its validity.

Ratio Decidendi: A legatee who knowingly accepts a benefit under a will elects to take under the instrument and cannot thereafter challenge its validity or repudiate its burdens.

---