Onus is on Propounder of Will for proof of execution of Will.

(Appeal against the judgment and decree dated of the learned I Additional District Judge of Coimbatore dated 08.08.1994 in A.S.No.172 of 1993 reversing the judgment and Decree of the I Additional District Munsif of Coimbatore dated 21.06.1993 in O.S.No.673 of 1983)

The plaintiff in O.S.No.673 of 1983 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court Coimbatore, who succeeded before the Trial Court, but lost before the first Appellate Court, has filed the above second appeal.

2. The suit in O.S.No.673 of 1983 was filed by the appellant for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in the suit property and for mense profits at Rs.250/- per month from the date of filing of suit, till possession is delivered to her.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is as follows:

The suit property is a house property, bearing Door No.12/39 A in Arunthathiyar Street, Coimbatore. The suit house was originally purchased by one Savadammal by a Sale Deed Ex.A.5 dated 01.07.1956, from one Marimuthu Reddy for Rs.2,445/-. The eldest son Ponnuswamy got himself separated from the family. 1/4th share in the house property was settled in favour of the eldest son Ponnuswamy by the deceased Savadammal as per Ex.A.1, Settlement Deed dated 27.03.1972. There is no dispute with regard to the aspects.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that the original owner Savadammal died intestate on 10.07.1973. On the death of the said Savadammal, the plaintiff and the other son Ramachandran and another daughter the sixth defendant became entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property. Defendants 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of the said Ramachandran. The plaintiff had issued a notice calling for the division of the suit property. On 08.03.1983, the first defendant issued a false reply stating that Savadammal had left a Will on 19.05.1973 under which the suit property was bequeathed in favour of Ramachandran the husband of the first defendant. Such a will in favour of the said Ramachandran could only be a forged Will and not genuine, valid and binding on the plaintiff and hence the suit is filed claiming partition of the 1/3rd share in the suit property.

6. Denying the averments in the plaint, Defendants 1 to 5 have filed the written statement contending as follows: The deceased Savadammal had much love and affection for Ramachandran, who was taking care of his mother till her death. The plaintiff and the sixth defendant are married and settled in life. The deceased Savadammal was conscious of the needs and responsibilities of the said Ramachandran and hence she bequeathed the suit property as per the Will dated 19.05.1973, by which she cancelled the earlier Will dated 27.03.1972. In fact, the husband of the sixth defendant had also attested the Will in favour of the said Ramachandran and hence the plaintiff and the sixth defendant are estopped from denying the genuineness of the Will dated 19.05.1973. In pursuance of the Will, the first defendant's husband Ramachandran had taken possession of the suit property and is in continuous possession of the suit property and the property tax is also transferred in the name of the said Ramachandran. After the death of the said Ramachandran, the plaintiff and the sixth defendant with a view to gain unfair advantage are trying to cause harassment to the helpless widow, the first defendant herein. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in the suit property.

7. The sixth defendant filed a separate written statement interalia contending that one year after the death of Savadammal, Ramachandran came to her house and obtained her husband#18;s signature in the alleged Will purported to have been executed by the said Savadammal. Late Savadammal did not execute any such Will, either in favour of Ramachandran or in favour of his family members. On the date when her husband signed in the Will, Savadammal was not