S.S. Satheesachandran, J. –

Plaintiff is the appellant. His claim for partition and separate possession of the suit properties was negatived by the court below upholding the opposition of the 1st defendant that there was testamentary succession over the properties under Ext.B9 Will. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has come up with this appeal.

2. Plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the two sons, and the 2nd defendant, the only daughter of late P.L.Asher. Three schedules of properties as 'A', 'B' and 'C' were described under the plaint for partition and separate possession. Plaint 'A' schedule property belonged to the aforesaid P.L.Asher, the father of the parties and, 'B' and 'C' schedule properties belonged to their grand father, the former of them is immovable property and the latter, movable properties, was the case of the plaintiff. Suit claim for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the above three schedule properties was sought for by the plaintiff alleging that a request made by way of a letter and also by a reminder to supply a copy of the Will purported to have been executed by late P.L.Asher, as claimed by the 1st defendant