Concurrent findings given by lower court requires no interference.

The above Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant in O.S.No:6586 of 1989 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras challenging the judgement and decree dated 22.1.1991 made in O.S.No.6586 of 1989 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras as confirmed by the judgement and decree dated 27.11.1991 made in A.S.No.252 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

2. Pending the appeal, the sole respondent-plaintiff passed away and respondents 2 to 7 were brought on record as his legal representatives by order dated 19.8.2002 made in CMP.No.6125 to 6127 of 2001.

3. Heard Mr.A.Palaniappan, for Mr.M.Devendran, for the appellant and Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial court for convenience.

4. The deceased first respondent instituted the suit O.S.No.6586 of 1989 for declaration of title and permanent injunction besides other consequential reliefs. After contest the learned trial court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence let in by either side decreed the suit granting the relief of declaration of title as well as relief of injunction and other consequential reliefs. The defendant being aggrieved by the said judgement and decree of the trial court dated 22.1.1991. preferred A.S.No.252 of 1991 on the file of the I Additional City Civil Judge, Madras. The first appellate court after consideration of oral and documentary evidence dismissed the appeal by its judgement and decree dated 27.11.1991. Being aggrieved, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant in the suit.

5. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed:-

(i) Whether the courts below are right in the view they took that Ex.A.1 dated 18.11.19868 executed by Lakshmi Ammal in favour of the plaintiff is true and valid?

(ii) Whether the courts below were right in their conclusions that despite the grant of probate of the ill dated 11.6.1984 in O.P.No.474 of 1986, it will be null and void and also not binding on the plaintiff?

6. It is essential to refer to the facts briefly. The suit came to be presented on 5.7.1989. According to the plaintiff the suit property originally belonged to Alamelu Ammal from whom late Lakshmi Ammal purchased the same with her separate funds on 29.6.1935 in and by a registered document of sale. The said Lakshmi Ammal constructed a house and was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said Laksmi Ammal while in sound disposing state of mind on her own on 18.11.1968 executed a deed of settlement settling the suit property and handed over possession of the B Schedule property to the plaintiff. According to the settlement deed the said Lakshmi Ammal has to enjoy the property during her life time and vested reminder to go to the plaintiff. On 6.5.1983 the said Lakshmi Ammal passed away. After the death of Lakshmi Ammal there has been mutuation of patta and taxation in favour of the plaintiff and he is in possession of the same. It was claimed that the first defendant's father-in-law Munusamy Mudaliar executed a Will on 11.2.1974 and the defendant claimed the same under the pretext of a Will. The said Munusamy Mudaliar is the brother of Duraisamy Mudaliar, who married the said Lakshmi Ammal. The said Will is not genuine. Munusamy mudaliar passed away on 20.9.1984. The defendant has probated the Will executed by Munusamy Mudaliar by instituting O.P.No.474 of 1986. The said Will of Munusamymudaliar is a brought up document and for more than 60 years there was no relationship between Duraisamy Mudaliar and Munusamy Mudaliar and at any rate Mnusamy Mudaliar has no right at all over the property and he cannot execute a Will. The application moved by the plaintiff on the original side of this court was disposed of with a direction that the plaintiff has to seek appropriate relief before the competent court. The said Will