The 8th Defendant in O.P.No.309 of 2000, which has been converted into T.O.S.No.5 of 2001 and the Plaintiff in O.S.No.455 of 2003, which was pending on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai and transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as C.S.No.90 of 2004, is the appellant and aggrieved by the decreeing of the suit in T.S.No.5 of 2001 and dismissal of her suit in C.S.No.90 of 2004, has filed these appeals.

.2. The facts in brief for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:-

.The Plaintiff in T.O.S.No.5 of 2001 viz., Ms.Crecey Fernandes has filed O.P.No.309 of 2000 on the file of this Court, under Section 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against Sister Pia Fernandes and 7 others, praying for Probate of the Will dated 14.06.1986, executed by her Late brother S.R.Fernandes.

3. The 8th Respondent viz., S.J.Jansi Rani, who is the appellant in these appeals, entered a caveat and opposed the grant of Probate. Therefore, the O.P. was converted into T.O.S.No.5 of 2001.

4. In the Original Petition, it is averred among other things that wife of S.R.Fernandes pre-deceased him and they had no issues. S.R.Fernandes was living alone in the upstairs portion of his residence and died of cardiac arrest in the After Noon on 18. 1998 and at the time of his death, none was with him. The tenant who is residing in the Ground-floor, on becoming aware of the death of S.R.Fernandes, called a doctor, who certified that he died of cardiac arrest. The tenant had also informed the police who registered a case and a telegram was also sent to a friend of the deceased in Bangalore. After post-mortem, the body was handed over to the friend of late S.R.Fernandes and it was buried according to Christian rites.

.5. It is further averred in the petition that the plaintiff in T.O.S.No.5 of 2001 became aware of the demise of her brother S.R.Fernandes nearly after two months and immediately she rushed to Chennai. On visiting the house of her late brother, the plaintiff found that the tenant who was residing in the Ground-floor, had criminally trespassed in the upstairs portion occupied by her late brother and also taken away all important records and also plundered the household and other articles. The original Holograph Will dated 14.06.1986 (Ex.P1) was given to the Plaintiff by way of abundant caution under which, her deceased brother S.R.Fernandes has appointed her as a Sole Executrix of the Will and it is an unregistered Will. The deceased was possessed an immovable property in the City of Chennai, which is his self acquired property. The next kith and kin of the deceased were impleaded as parties to the above said O.P./T.O.S.

.and none of them had opposed. Therefore, the plaintiff in T.O.S.No.5 of 2001 prayed for the Probate of the Will.

6. The affidavit of attestors of the Will were also enclosed along with the said O.P.

7. As already stated, the said O.P. was converted into T.O.S.No.5 of 2001, on the opposition from 8th Defendant viz., S.J.Jansi Rani. She filed a written statement contending among other things that the Will dated 14.06.1986, is a manufactured one and the signature of S.R.Fernandes was forged thereon. It is further contended that the deceased S.R.Fernandes had executed an Adoption Deed dated 21. 1994, in favour of the 8th Defendant as his Adopted-daughter and he had bequeathed all his properties by virtue of the said Adoption Deed. It is also contended by the 8th Defendant that the Will dated 14.06.1986, was not duly executed or attested and it is inadmissible in law.

8. The 8th Defendant in T.O.S.No.5 of 2001 filed O.S.No.455 of 2003, on the file of the City Civil Court at Chennai against Ms.Crecey Fernandes, for declaration that the Adoption Deed dated 21. 1994, executed by late S.R.Fernandes, is a true and valid one binding on the defendant, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession of the suit property and also from executing the order of