(This appeal was filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the decree and Judgment dated 27.4.1992 and made in O.S.No.85 of 1989 on the file of Sub Court, Ariyalur.)

This appeal has been preferred against the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.85 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Ariyalur.

2. The averments in the plaint in brief are as follows:

The plaintiff, 5th defendant, and 6th defendant are the sisters of the deceased Manicka Udayar, who was the husband of the 1st defendant and the father of defendants 2 to 4. Admittedly, the father of the plaintiff, 5th defendant, 6th defendant and the deceased Manicka Udayar, was one Nallathambi Udayar. According to plaintiff, the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Nallathambi Udayar,the father, who died intestate in the year 1979 leavingbehind him,his wife,the first defendant's husband Manicka Udayar, and his sisters, the plaintiff,5th defendant and 6th defendant as his legal heirs. The plaintiff's mother also died in the year 1986 Nallathambi Udayar had no necessity to borrow any debts. There was no debt to the Hindu Joint Family on the death of Nallathambi Udayar. The plaintiff being an undivided member of the Joint Family of the deceased Nallathambi Udayar, is entitled to 1/4th share in all the suit properties on the death of her father along with defendants 1 to 6. Since the other defendants have not joined with the plaintiff, as co-owner, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit. Every year, plaintiff's brother Manicka Udayar used to give grains and cash for the maintenance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's brother Manicka Udayar also died intestate on 20.5.1989 leaving behind him, his wife and children, who are defendants 1 and 2 to 4 respectively. After the death of Manicka Udayar, the plaintiff demanded defendants 1 to 4 for a partition. When the plaintiff approached defendants 1 to 4 for partition, due to evil advice of some mischief mongers, defendants 1 to 4 denied the share of the plaintiff in the suit properties by saying that the deceased Manicka Udayar had executed certain documents. Defendants 1 to 4 would contend that on 17.5.1989, Manicka Udayar had executed a registered Will, bequeathing all the suit schedule properties in favour of defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiff obtained a registration copy of the same on 21.6.1989. The alleged Will was not duly executed by the deceased Manicka Udayar. The alleged attestors and scribe of the said document are the henchmen of the 1st defendant. It ought to be a forged and concocted document. Even if, there is any Will, it will not bind the interest of the plaintiff and her sisters in respect of the suit schedule properties. Neither the plaintiff nor her sisters were parties to the said document. Only to deny, the plaintiff's due share in the plaint schedule properties, Defendants 1 to 4 have falsely created a right through the said Will. Defendants 1 to 4 refused to divide the suit property on 22.6.1989. The plaintiff does not want to remain joint with other sharers any more. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition of her 1/4th share in the suit properties.

3.Defendants 1 to 4 have filed a joint written statement with the following averments:

The description of property given in the plaint Item 1 to the plaint schedule is not correct. It should be Sy.No.32/5. Items 6 to 9, 13 and 14 are not the family properties. They are not liable for partition. Item 15, part I of Item 5 and Item 22 are not liable to be partitioned because they are the separate properties of Manicka Udayar by virtue of sale deed dated 5.6.1974,18.9.1973 and 27.5.1953. The quantum of share claimed by the plaintiff is not correct. It is excessive. The deceased Manicka Udayar has bequeathed his properties under a registered Will dated 17.5.1989 suit items 1 to 5, 10 to 12 and 15 to 22 were conveyed to defendants 1 to 4 under the said Will by Manicka Udayar. It is the last Will executed by Manicka Udayar. The said Will