Execution of will proved and held legal

Since the issues involved in both the appeals are one and the same, the appeals may be disposed of by the following common judgment.

2. Defendants in O.S.No.531 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Madurai are the appellants in A.S.No.258 of 1084. Plaintiff in O.S.No.489 of 1980 on the file of the same court is the appellant in Transfer Appeal No.837 of 1991.

3. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.489 of 1980 is briefly stated hereunder: According to the plaintiff, the suit properties originally belonged to one Koothan Servai, grand-father of the plaintiff, husband of the first defendant and father of the second defendant. The said Koothan Servai had only two daughters, namely, 2nd defen-dant-Koothayi Ammal and one Vellai Ammal. Koothan Servai had no male issues. He had given Koothan Ammal and Vallai Ammal in marriage long ago and had given them sufficient cash and customary presents and married them well. Even during Koothan Servai’s life time, the relationship between the family of the 2nd defendant, namely, her husband (3rd defendant), second defendant’s daughters, defendants 4 and 5 and 2nd defendant’s son 8th defendant was strained. Koothan Servai decided to settle the marriage of the second daughter of Koothayi Ammal to the sister’s son of Koothayi Ammal’s husband, namely, 3rd defendant. Fifth defendant wrote a letter to the said Koothan Servai on 211. 1978 protesting against the marriage of the second daughter of 3rd defendant and abusing Koothan Servai in most undignified and insulting words. 3rd defendant also sent a letter by registered post to Koothan Servai on 211. 1978 protesting against this marriage and threatening to file a civil suit against Koothan Servai. However, in spite of these protests, Koothan Servai celebrated the marriage of the 2nd daughter of Koothayi Ammal as already decided by him. Thus, the relationship of Koothan Servai with the family of Koothayi Ammal was very much strained. Consequently he decided to execute a will bequeathing all his properties only in favour of his grandson-plaintiff through his other daughter, namely, Vellai Ammal.

4. It is further contended that while Koothan Servai was in a sound and disposing state of mind, he voluntarily executed a will on 9. 1979, whereby the Schedule mentioned properties have been bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff. The Will has been duly registered. Koothan Servai, though a diabetic patient was quite hale and healthy till the last moment of his death. He was running a private school under the name and style Swami Vivekananda, a Middle School at Silukkuvarpatti and he was the Manager and Correspondent of the school. Till his last days, he was personally attending to the day-to-day affairs of the Institution and personally attending to his properties. The plaintiff is in possession of the schedule mentioned properties as per the will through his father and guardian Kandan. The second defendant and her family members felt frustrated because Koothan Servai has not bequeath any property to Koothayi Ammal or her children bom to her. The first defendant also is residing with her elder daughter Koothayi Ammal, the 2nd defendant. The defendants are threatening to commit trespass into the suit properties. The plaintiff constrained to file the present suit for declaration that the plaintiff alone has got title to the suit properties and as a consequence thereof for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

5. Defendants 1 to 3 filed common written statement wherein they denied even the relationship of the parties narrated by the plaintiff It is contended that the said Koothan Servai had two brothers and all of them owned joint family properties, which they have divided in or about 1957. In the said partition Koothan Servai was allotted the properties described in Schedules A and B of the plaint in O.S.No.531 of 1980 on