N.K. Balakrishnan, J.

1. Both appeals are filed by Smt.Shamila P. Iqbal, the 4th defendant in O.S.49/2000 who is the plaintiff in O.S.128/2000. O.S.49/2000 was filed by the first respondent Anas P. Iqbal who is the eldest son of Mohammed Iqbal for a declaration that Ext.B25 Will executed by his father P.A. Mohammed Iqbal is vitiated by fraud, undue influence and coercion and also for partition of the properties left behind by his father who died on 7.9.99. 2nd respondent, Hajira Beevi who is the first defendant in O.S.49/00, is the wife of Mohammed Iqbal. Respondents 3 and 4(D2 and D3 in O.S.49/00) are the other two sons of late Mohammed Iqbal.

2. O.S.49/00 was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge holding that Ext.B25 Will is true and genuine and that all the legal heirs have accepted and acted upon that Will. The plea raised by the appellant that she was the naturally born daughter of Mohammed Iqbal and Hajira Beevi was turned down. Based on the judgment in O.S.49/00 the suit O.S.128/'00, subsequently filed by the appellant, was also dismissed.

3. The plaintiff in O.S.49/00 did not file any appeal.

4. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are similar, we have heard both the appeals together.

5. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in RFA 174/'07. Respondents 5 to 21 are not contesting respondents. Hence, hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, contesting respondents are referred to as 'respondents'.

6. Shorn of the details the case of the appellant is stated thus. The appellant, R1, R3 and R4 are the children of Mohammed Iqbal and Hajira Beevi. The appellant married one Mohammed Sali. Respondents 2 to 4 were not happy with that marriage. In order to deprive the appellant of her due share in the property left behind by Mohammed Iqbal a Will was created by the respondents. That Will was got executed under coercion and undue influence. It is against the provisions of the Mohammedan Law. The appellant is not an adopted daughter as contended by the respondents. She is the naturally born daughter of late Mohammed Iqbal and Smt.Hajira Beevi and so on the death of Mohammed Iqbal his property devolved upon the appellant and respondents 1 to 4. The marriage of the appellant with Mohammed Sali was solemnized with the blessings of Mohammed Iqbal. Since the Will was not executed with the consent and knowledge of all the legal heirs it is invalid and inoperative.

7. The appellant was known all through and brought up as daughter of Mohammed Iqbal and it was so recorded in all the records. It was so mentioned in the school records and in other records. Even assuming that the appellant is not the naturally born daughter of Mohammed Iqbal through Hajira Beevi since she was acknowledged by Mohammed Iqbal as his daughter, under Mohammedan Law, she is entitled to the share in the suit properties.

8. Respondents contended that the appellant was not the naturally born daughter of Mohammed Iqbal and Hajira Beevi. She was born on 19.5.1978 at Lissie Hospital, Ernakulam to one Safia and she was abandoned by her mother. Kochamina Umma, the mother of Mohammed Iqbal, obtained the abandoned child and brought her to the family house of Mohammed Iqbal. The contention that the Will is vitiated by fraud, undue influence etc. is denied. The Will was accepted and acted upon by all the legal heirs of deceased Mohammed Iqbal.

9. O.S.49/2000 was first taken up for trial. Evidence was adduced by the parties in that suit. The plaintiff, Anas Iqbal, was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A12 and B1 to B29 were marked. DWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Ext.X1 series to Ext.X2 and Ext.X3 series were marked.

10. The Court below held that the appellant is not the naturally born daughter or acknowledged daughter of Mohammed Iqbal and Hajira Beevi. It was further found that the Will in question is genuine and valid and was acted upon by all the legal heirs. Thus the plea raised by the appellant in both suits was turned down by the trial Court. The appell