V. Sethuraman, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of some common facts. However, we would first consider the Letters Patent Appeal before we go into the O.S.A.

2. This appeal has been filed by one Thangavelu, who was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 5265 of 1967. The relevant facts which gave rise to this appeal are as follows:

3. There was one Munuswamy Naicker, who had a wife by name Kuppammal. Under Exhibit A-1, dated 16th October, 1902, the suit property was purchased in the name of Kuppammal. Munuswamy Naicker left a will dated 25th January, 1922, the photostat copy of which has been marked as Exhibit A-3. In that will Munuswamy treated the property purchased in the name of the said Kuppammal as his property and made dispositions accordingly. They had a daughter by name Vaduvambal, who was married to one Velu Naicker. At the time of the will, Vaduvambal, her husband and her children were living with him. Vaduvambal had three sons and a daughter by name Dhanalakshmi, the daughter being the eldest who was aged about 11 years, The three sons were Balakrishna, Gnanasundaram and Marimuthu, who were aged 8, 5 and 3, respectively. In respect of the suit property the will provided for th