JUDGMENT

ANIL R. DAVE, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered in Appeal Suit No. 774 of 1989 dated 25th June, 2004, by the High Court of Madras, this appeal has been filed by Original Defendant No. 3 in the suit. The suit filed by present respondent nos. 1 and 2 had been dismissed and, therefore, the plaintiffs had filed the aforestated appeal, which has been allowed by the High Court and, therefore, original defendant no. 3 has filed the present appeal.

3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as under:

4. Original Suit No. 57 of 1985 was filed by present respondent nos. 1 and 2 for a declaration that the properties referred to in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ attached to the plaint, belong to plaintiffs 1 and 2 respectively and, therefore, the other defendants, namely, the present appellant and other respondents be restrained from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.

5. It was a case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff no. 2 who was the daughter of late Arumugha Mudaliar and plaintiff no.1 was the son of plaintiff no. 2, i.e., grandson of late Arumugha Mudaliar. Arumugha Mudaliar had three children, namely, Mangalam, Saraswathi and Jayasubramanian. Jayasubramanian, the only son had expired in 1982 and he was survived by Saroja, his widow, the present appellant and defendant no. 3 in the suit.

6. As son of late Arumugha Mudaliar had expired, he had adopted Santhilkumar, his grand-son, the son of his daughter Saraswathi and plaintiff no. 1, by executing an adoption deed dated 18th August, 1984, after doing necessary rituals required to be performed under Hindu Law. Late Arumugha Mudaliar had thereafter executed a registered will on October 11, 1984, whereby the properties referred to hereinabove along with other properties had been bequeathed and properties referred to in the schedule attached to the plaint had been disposed of in favour of his daughter Saraswathi and his grandson Santhilkumar i.e. the plaintiffs. Late Arumugha Mudaliar expired on 14th January, 1985.

7. As the defendants i.e. present appellant and respondent nos. 3 & 4 were interfering with or were likely to interfere with the possession of the properties referred to hereinabove, Original Suit No. 57 of 1985 was filed by Saraswathi and her son Santhilkumar, who was minor at the relevant time. The said suit was dismissed for the reason that the trial court did not believe that Santhilkumar was properly adopted by late Arumugha Mudaliar and the properties which had been bequeathed in the will were ancestral properties and, therefore, late Arumugha Mudaliar had no absolute right to dispose of the same.

8. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, Santhilkumar and Saraswathi filed Appeal Suit No. 774 of 1989 in the High Court of Madras which has been allowed and, therefore, the present appeal has been filed by Saroja, widow of the son of late Arumugha Mudaliar, and defendant no. 3.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly submitted that the properties which had been bequeathed in the will were not self-acquired properties of Arumugha Mudaliar and that other family members had also a right in the said properties, as the properties were joint family properties. He, therefore, submitted that late Arumugha Mudaliar had no right to execute the will and that the will, by virtue of which the property had been bequeathed, was not a valid will in the eye of law. Before the Trial Court it was urged that late Arumugha Mudaliar had also executed another will on 13th January, 1985, which was unregistered and that was a valid will as the said will, being executed latter in point of time, the will dated 11th October, 1984, stood automatically revoked.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the original-plaintiffs Santhilkumar and Saraswathi submitted that the High Court had rightly reappreciated the evidence and by reasoned judgment held that the properties