Grounds for interference with the decision of lower appellate court.

K. SAMPATH, J.

( 1 ) - S. A. No. 575 of 1984 has been filed against the decision in A. S. No. 77 of 1982 on the file of the District Court, periyar, which was against C. S. No 762 of 1981 on the file of District Munsifs Court, erode. The plaintiff in the suit, who succeeded before the trial court and lost before the lower appellate court is the appellant.

( 2 ) S. A. No. 582 of 1984 has been filed against A. S. No. 117 of 1982 on the file of the District Court, Periyar, which was filed against O. S. No. 1106 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Erode. Plaintiffs in o. S. No. 1106 of 1981 who succeeded before the trial court and lost before the lower appellate court filed the second appeal. Pending the second appeal, the second appellant died and the third appellant was brought on record as her legal representative. Defendants 1 to 3 were the same in both the suits. The first defendant Rangasami died pending the first appeals. The third defendant did not contest the suit.

( 3 ) THERE was a joint trial in the two suits. Evidence was common as also the judgment. There were two appeals by the defeated defendants 1 and 2 and there was a common judgment by the appellate court and the present appeals have been filed by the defeated plaintiffs.

( 4 ) ONE Natraya Naidus wife was kanniammal. She died on 1. 6. 1978. Her children were Rangaswami, the first defendant in the suits, and Marammal and andalammal, who were plaintiffs 1 and 2 in suit O. S No. 1106 of 1981. Marammals daughter Rajammal, was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 762 of 1981. Rangasamis sons are ramasamy and Ganesan @ Ganapathi. Ramasamys wife is Rajammal, daughter of the plaintiff in the other suit and herself the plaintiff in O S. No 762 of 1981. Ramasamy and Ganesan are defendants 2 and 3 in both the suits. The children of Ramasamy and rajammal are Parvathy and Subramanian. For better understanding the following genealogy can be perused. GENEALOGY

( 5 ) TWO Wills are attributed to Kanniammal. One is Ex. A3 dated 19. 2. 1976 and the

other is Ex. B1 dated 31. 5. 1978. The sum and substance is as to which of the two Wills have to be accepted as true, valid and binding on the parties. So far as Ex. A3 is concerned, it has been found to be true by both the courts below. The trial Court held that it was valid and would govern the rights of parties. The trial Court also held that Ex. B-1 was not true, valid or binding on the parties. But, the lower appellate Court found Ex. B1 to be true valid and binding on all the parties.

( 6 ) UNDER Ex. A3 Rajammal gets a life estate in respect of two items and her children, viz. Parvathy and Subramanian are to take the properties absolutely after her lifetime. The items left out will therefore devolve on the heirs of Kanniammal. viz Rangasami marammal and Andalammal. The whole question will now depend on the decision regarding ex. Bl Will alleged to have been executed by Kanniammal.

( 7 ) THE attack by the learned counsel appearing for the third appellant Subramanian in S. A. No. 582 of 1984 is as follows : under Ex. Bl there was no cancellation of the earlier Will. No reason was given for the change of mind of the testatrix. There is no keeral in the third page. It is not a natural Will the evidence of the Sub Registrar as D. W. 3 should be discredited. One of the attestors subramanian, who was a man of status has not been examined. The learned counsel also relied on the following judgments in support of her contentions : 1. H. Venkatachala v. B. N. Thimmajamma and; 2. M. L Abdul Jahar Sahib v. H. U. Venkata Sastri and Sons and Ors.

( 8 ) LET us now see how the lower appellate Court accepted the second Will Ex. B1. So far as the first Will Ex. A3 is concerned, I have already referred to the fact that it was found to be true and valid by both the courts though the lower appellate court has observed that Ex. A3 is unnatural in the sense that Rangasami, the only son of the testatrix kanniammal, had been disinherited c