P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for partition of the plaint schedule property on the basis that his father Kuttappu died intestate. Defendants 5 and 6 propounded a will and contended that the testator had bequeathed the properties to them. The Courts below upheld the will and consequently found that the plaintiff was not entitled to a partition. The suit was hence dismissed. The plaintiff has come up with this Second Appeal. The substantial questions of law so formulated are whether it would be held that the execution of the will had been properly proved in terms of S.68 of the Indian Evidence Act, whether this was not a case where the will was not revoked by the testator and whether the properties that are the subject-matter of the suit are not joint family properties over which, the plaintiff has a share by birth. I may say that the last aspect was based on a plea which the plaintiff had that the plaint schedule properties were acquired by the consideration obtained by sale of an item of joint family property and the plaintiff as a son, had a right over the property, a case which was found against by the courts below.

2. The plai