The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory right to cross-examine a witness based on adverse interest, the requirement to consider entire pleadings, and the need for reasons in granting ex parte injunctions.

Challenge in is to the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.608 of 2008 in O.S.No.469 of 2004 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners with a prayer to reject the right of the first respondent to cross examine the fifth respondent.

2. Challenge in is to the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Coimbatore in I.A.NO.1041 of 2009 granting an order of interim injunction against the petitioners.

BACKGROUND FACTS

3. The suit in O.S.No.469 of 2004 was preferred by the first respondent against the revision petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 praying for a judgment and decree of partition of the suit property into seven equal shares and to allot one such share to her with separate possession and enjoyment.

4. In the plaint in O.S.No.469 of 2004, the first respondent would contend thus:-

(a) The schedule property was purchased in the name of deceased Janakiammal by her husband late K.Venkatesalu, who is none other than the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. The property was purchased as per registered document dated 16. 1951 and the entire sale consideration was paid by Thiru K.Venkatesalu though the property was purchased in the name of his wife Janakiammal. Subsequent to the purchase Thiru K. Venkatesalu constructed a bungalow, which was given the name "Green Banks". The entire funds for the construction was provided only by late Venkatesalu. His wife Janaki Ammal was only a house wife and she was not having the resources both for purchasing the property as well as to put up the bungalow.

(b) The parents of the plaintiff was having only female children and as such the sixth defendant, her son was given in adoption to her parents, as per the deed of declaration of adoption dated 16. 1983. Accordingly the sixth defendant was taken over by her parents, treated him as their son and he was brought up as such to the knowledge of the entire public of Coimbatore. The sixth defendant was residing along with the adopted parents and his entire education was met by them and he was also given in marriage.

(c) The sixth defendant was a dutiful son of Janakiammal and K.Venkatesalu. He performed all the duties of a son and lived with them throughout their life. The marriage of the children of deceased Venkatesalu were performed by the parents in a grand manner. However the fifth defendant was a spendthrift without any moral standard and she divorced her husband and on account of her conduct which was not expected from the member of a reputed family the parents were in great sorrow. Mr.Venkatesalu died on account of the mental torture inflicted by the fifth defendant. Her mother Janakiammal was also at great pains on account of the activities of the fifth defendant in particular.

(d) While the matters stood thus, the fifth defendant made attempts to marry her blood relation, the seventh defendant, which was also not liked by the members of the family including their mother. The mother was so worried that it would be impossible for her to move in the society. Subsequently the mother became sick and ultimately she died. The fifth defendant in collusion with defendants 2 to 4 in the suit, fabricated and cooked up a will dated 8. 2002 to grab the "A" schedule property. The said will was not genuine, valid and binding on the plaintiff.

(e) According to the plaintiff, her deceased mother was not in a good mental condition and as such the will was the result of a rank forgery committed by the fifth defendant in association with her accomplice. Therefore the will was not valid and enforceable and no right would accrue to the beneficiaries of the will. In such circumstances, the plaintiff prayed for partition of the property.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants.

6. In the written statement filed by the revision petitioners, being defendants 3 and 5 in the suit, they have narrated the facts which led to the execution of the will by their mother. According to the revision