Defendant Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 in O.S. No. 15/86 on the file of the first Addl. District Court, Ernakulam are the appellants in this appeal. The proceedings before the court below originated as probate O.P. 61/1986 filed by invoking the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction of the District Judge under Sections 266 and 268 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). The first respondent V.K. Raju was the petitioner in the above probate O.P.

2. The case of the petitioner in the lower court can be summarised as follows:-

Late E.A. Thomas, S/o. Augustine, was permanently residing in Amaravathy, Fort Kochi. He died on 7-1-1980 at building No. X/602, Amaravathy, Cochin. The said Thomas had duly executed from the aforesaid house his last will and testament on 9-2-1985 produced along with the O.P. The petitioner is the executor named in the will. The petitioner has truly set forth in Schedule No. I all the properties and credits which the deceased possessed or was entitled to get at the time of his death. The petitioner has also truly set forth in Schedule No. II the items which by law are allowed to be deducted. Respondents 1 to 10 are the widow and children of deceased Thomas and they are his legal heirs as per the Cochin Christian Succession Act. No application has been made to any District Court or to High Court for probate or letters of administration of the will with or without the will annexed. The petitioner prays that a probate may be granted to him having effect throughout the State of Kerala in respect of the properties mentioned in the O.P.

3. Upon the filing of the above O. P. the court below issued notice to the respondents and also ordered publication of the same in the Gazette and Malayala Manorama daily. The court below had also called for the valuation statement from the District Collector.

4. The respondents to the original petition were the following:

i) Benny Thomas (widow of late E.A. Thomas)

ii) Elsy

iii) Sandhyavu @ Kunhappan

iv) Philomina

v) Francis

vi) E.T. Treasa

vi) Sebastian @ Peter

vii) E.T. Antony

ix) E.T. Augustine

x) E.T. Josey

The 1st respondent above is the widow and the other respondents to the O.P. are the sons and daughters of late Thomas.

5. Upon receipt of notice in the above original petition respondents 1 and 10 above filed a joint statement to the effect that they have absolutely no objection to the grant of probate to the will executed by late E.A Thomas. Respondents 2 to 5 and 7 above filed separate affidavits to the effect that late Thomas had not executed any will during his lifetime and that the will set up by the petitioner was a concocted document prepared in collusion with the 9th respondent. Respondents 2 to 5 above had also filed a joint objection to the grant of probate.

6. In view of the contest by the respondents other than respondents 1,4, 6,8,9 and 10 to the probate O.P., the O.P. was converted into a regular suit and re-numbered as O.S. No. 15/1986. Thereafter the appellants herein namely, defendants 2, 3, 5 and 7 alone objected to the grant of probate by filing a written statement. The 4th respondent to the O.P. withdrew her contest and filed a statement to the effect that she has no objection to the grant of probate.

7. In the joint written statement filed by defendants 2, 3, 5 and 7 they contended inter alia as follows:

E.A. Thomas, father of defendants 2 to 9 and husband of the first defendant had never executed any will during his lifetime nor had he appointed any executor. Deceased Thomas was residing in the property along with all the defendants. The house wherein he was residing with the members of his family belonged to him. Deceased Thomas always wanted all his assets to be enjoyed by all his legal heirs. He was not keeping well for some time before his death. At that time he did not have the requisite capacity to decide matters independently. It appears that a loan was availed in his name from the bank by the 9th defendant and at th