( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 1/12/1994 passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in A. S. No. 96 of 1988 and Transferred A. S. No. 1507 of 1988 and Transferred A. S. No. 1508 of 1988. Transferred Appeal No. 1507 of 1988 arose out of O. S. No. 187 of 1985, in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal. Transferred A. S. No. 1508 of 1988, arose out of O. S. No. 168 of 1987 in the said Court. A. S. No. 96 of 1988, arose out of O. S. No. 274 of 1985, in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge. Namakkal. The father of the appellant Sadasivam was one Marappa Gounder. The said Marappa Gounder filed a suit in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, a Namakkal being O. S. No. 187 of 1985, for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the said Marappa in favour of the respondent-Doriasamy was a sham document and had not been acted upon. The said Marappa also filed another suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Namakkal being O. S. No. 781 of 1985, for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent- Dorasamy from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit properties being Survey No. 149/1 on an allegation that the respondent had been attempting to encroach on the said property unlawfully. The said suit before the learned Subordinate Munsif was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal and was numbered as O. S. No. 168/87. While the two suits were pending, the respondent Doraisamy also filed a suit being O. S. No. 274/85, in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal inter alia for a declaration of half share in the joint properties by Karuppanna Gounder the father of Marappa since bequeathed to the said Doraisamy by a will dated 17/01/1979, executed by the said Karuppanna Gounder.

( 3 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, dismissed the suits filed by Marappa but decreed the suit filed by the respondent Doraisamy inter alia on the finding that the sale-deed executed by Marappa in favour of Doraisamy converying his share in the joint family properties was not a sham document but a valid document and the will executed by Karuppanna bequeathings his half share in the joint family properties in favour of the respondent Doraisamy was also a genuine will thereby conveying the interest of Karuppanna in favour of the said Doraisamy.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgments passed in the said suits, Marappa preferred appeals but during the pendency of such appeals, Marappa died and his son Sadasivam the appellant before this Court was brought on record as his legal representative. In A. S. No. 96/88, Sada-sivam was also an appellant. The High Court disposed of all the said appeals by a common judgment dated 1/12/1994. The High Court inter alia held that the will was executed by Karuppanna Gounder voluntarily in respect of his half share in the joint properties and such will was genuine and by virtue of the said will, the respondent acquired the half share in the joint family properties belonging to Karuppanna. The High Court also upheld the finding or the trial Court that the sale deed executed by Marappa in respect of other half share in the properties in favour of the respondent was not a sham document and in view of such sale deed, the respondent also acquired the title to the joint family properties belonging to the said Marappa Gounder.

( 5 ) MR. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the will should not have been held valid and genuine by the Courts below since the validity of a will operates as a judgment in rem. The Court has a duty to ensure that such will had in fact been executed by the testator out of his free volition by fully understanding the implication of the will executed by him and the execution of such will has been properly attested by at least two witnesses. He has submitted that if there are circumstances whic