What are suspicious circumstances in the execution of Will.

The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The plaint averments briefly stated is as follows: The defendant is the younger brother of the plaintiff. The suit property originally belonged to their mother Chinnammal. The mother was very affectionate towards the plaintiff, even after the marriage, of the plaintiff. Chinnammal died intestate on 29. 1981 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant. She was unwell and was bed ridden for more than 6 months. She had no sound and disposing state of mind, and she was not able to distinguish right and wrong. In October, 1982, the defendant began to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, gave a police complaint. The defendant had informed the police that their mother has bequeathed the property in his favour by means of a registered Will and the plaintiff was not aware of it. Even if there is any such Will, it is not true, genuine and valid. The thumb impression in it is not voluntary and it is not the last testament of Chinnammal. The defendant should have obtained her thumb impression taking advantage of the mental faculty of the deceased Chinnammal. The mother has no reason to ignore the plaintiff. The Will is therefore not binding on the plaintiff, and she ignores the same. The defendant is not willing to have the suit property partitioned. Hence the suit for division of the suit property into two equal half and allotting one such share to the plaintiff.

.2. The defendant in his written statement states as follows:

.The plaintiff was married 18 years ago and has been living with her husband. The plaintiff and her husband indulged in drinking alcohol and wasteful expenditure and lost their entire property. They came to the house of Chinnammal penniless. Chinnammal therefore had no love or affection towards the plaintiff. The defendant and Chinnammal were living in the suit house and out of love and affection towards her son, she had executed a Will while in a sound and disposing state of mind on 19. 1981, bequeathing the suit properties in his favour. She died due to heart attack on 29. 1981. The Will dated 19. 1981 is her last Will and testament. The allegation that Chinnammal was affectionate towards the plaintiff is not correct. The allegation that the thumb impression of Chinnammal must have been forged is not correct. The attestors are independent persons and the Will is a true and valid one. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of partition and the suit has to be dismissed.

3. On the above pleadings, the trial court has held that the Will dated 19. 1981 is true and valid and the suit was therefore dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has come forward with this appeal.

.4. The plaintiff and the defendant are sister and brother respectively and they are the children of deceased Chinnammal. The suit property was purchased by Chinnammal out of her own funds and it is her personal property as alleged in the suit. According to the plaintiff, their mother was not keeping good health from about of 6 months prior to her death and she was not maintaining the mental capacity to know good and bad, right and wrong and she was actually bedridden prior to her death. According to the palintiff, the defendant attempted to interfere with her possession and therefore she gave a police complaint and when the police made an enquiry the defendant had informed them that their mother had executed a registered Will in his favour and it is only then she came to know of the Will said to have been executed by her mother and in her opinion it is not true and valid. The plaintiff has admitted that the thumb impression in the Will under Ex.P-1 should have been obtained by her brother, the defendant, taking advantage of her mother’s ill-health and bedridden condition and therefore, she is ignoring the Will and praying partition in the suit property owned by her mother: The defendant has resisted the suit by conte