F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.: The defendants 1 to 7 are the appellants. The first appellant is the mother and appellants 2 to 7 are the children of the first appellant through one late Mohammed Sultan Maracayar. The first respondent is the plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 5 are the sisters and brothers of the first respondent. Respondents 7 to 11 are the legal heirs of the 9th defendant who was the 4th respondent in the first appeal.

2. The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.52 of 1973 for partition of her 7/136th share in the suit schedule properties and for accounting and profits. One Mohammed Sultan Maracayar who died on 13.6.1967 had four wives. His first wife and third wife had no children. Through his second wife Hazarammal, the late Mohammed Sulthan Maracayar had three daughters and three sons. Of whom, first daughter Rameeza Bivi filed the suit. His fourth wife Zulaika Bivi had six children through him, and the said Zulaika Bivi and her children are the appellants herein. At the time when the first respondent filed the suit, appellants 4 to 6 were minors and they were represented by the first appellant.

3. The short facts of the case are that the late Mohammed Sultan Maracayar who had his permanent residence at Pattukotai was having the florishing business in cycle under the name and style of Deen Cycle Company at Pattukottai. It is stated that the 9th defendant in the suit one K.Jamal Mohammed, one of the sons was assisting Mohammed Sulthan Maracayar in his last days in the business and that the said Mohammed Sulthan Maracayar executed a Will dated 20.1.1956. Under the Will, he bequeathed properties described in ‘A’ schedule to the Will to the 9th and 11th defendant, and the properties described in ‘B’ schedule to the Will to the first appellant and her children i.e., appellants 2 to 6. It is also stated in the Will that whatever properties that were left out in the Will if and when traced out, should go to 9th and 11th appellants. Therefore, as per the Will, no property was allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 7, 8, 10 and 12. 7th defendant is one of the daughters of the first defendant. 8th and 12th defendants are the daughters of late Mohammed Sulthan Maracayar through his second wife Hazarammal. 10th defendant one K.M.Deen Mohammad is also one of the sons of late Mohammed Sulthan Maracayar through his second wife Hazarammal. After the demise of late Mohammed Sulthan Maracayar, the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 1972 for partition alleging that the 9th defendant along with the first defendant, taking advantage of the ill-health of late Mohammed Sulthan Maracayar managed to obtain the Will dated 20.1.1966, that after the death of late Mohammed Sulthan Maracayar, the 9th defendant obtained the signatures of the plaintiffs in some blank papers by stating that they were required for mutation purposes, that later on the plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the alleged Will dated 20.1.1966 that the Will was not a true Will and that the same was also invalid inasmuch as the consent of the heirs was not assigned to it after the death of the testator, the late Mohammed Sulthan Maracayar.

4. The first defendant along with her heirs, though initially supported the stand of the 9th defendant in resisting the suit, subsequently disowned their earlier written statement and filed an additional written statement taking diametrical opposite stand and contended that the Will was not a valid one.

5. As far as 9th defendant was concerned, his case was that late Mohammed Sulthan Maracayar was never under the nomination of the 9th defendant, that the Will dated 20.6.1966 was voluntarily executed by him, that the same was registered, that the plaintiff, 8th and 12th defendants were well provided by late Mohammed Sulthan Maracayar at the time of their marriages and therefore the late Mohammed Sulthan Maracayar thought it fit not to allot any property to them that the first defendant was provided with a house apart from certain m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document