The unprobated Will cannot be relied on by the plaintiff for evicting the defendants. The plaintiff failed to prove the due execution of the Will. The defendants did not prove their plea of oral sale or their right to occupy the suit property. The plaintiff cannot seek any relief in the suit based on the Will.

This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree 20.11.1995 passed in O.S.No.380 of 1990 by the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, which is one for delivery of possession of the suit properties, for mesne profits and for damages for illegal use and occupation of the properties.

2. The epitome and the long and short of the case of the plaintiff, as stood exposited from the averments in the plaint as well as from the documents and submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would run thus:-

.(a) The property described in the A schedule of the plaint was allotted to the share of one K. Chinna Kannu Reddy, as per Partition Deed dated 22. 1966(Ex.A2).

.(b) B and C schedule properties were allowed to be occupied by defendants 1 and 2 respectively, who are none but the brother-in-laws of the plaintiff, under leave and licence, by the said Chinna Kannu Reddy,

.(c) Chinna Kannu Reddy, during his life time executed a registered Will dated 27. 1993 in favour of the plaintiff, bequeathing the A scheduled property, which includes B and C scheduled properties of the plaint. In fact, the plaintiff happened to be the adopted son of the said Chinna Kannu Reddy.

.(d) After the death of Chinna Kannu Reddy on 27. 1985, as revealed by Ex.A3-the death certificate, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit properties.

.(e) Notice was sent revoking the licence granted in favour of D1 and D2, which, instead of evoking positive response from them, resulted in they sending replies, setting up untenable claims. A rejoinder also was sent by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for obtaining delivery of possession of the suit properties; for mesne profits and for damages for illegal use and occupation of the properties by the defendant.

3. Inveighing and impugning, refuting and remonstrating the case of the plaintiff, the defendants filed the written statement and addition written statements, the gist and kernal, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:-

(i) the properties, which are under the occupation of the defendants were purchased by them, as per Section 9 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, from the said Chinna Kannu Reddy by virtue of oral sale, as those properties were less than Rs.100/-.

.(ii) the defendants acquired prescriptive title over the suit property by virtue of their continuous, uninterrupted and open enjoyment as owners of the said properties for more than 20 years.

(iii) The defendants are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties under the alleged leave and licence referred to in the plaint.

.(iv) At the time of purchase of those properties from Chinna Kannu Reddy 20 years ago, they paid a sale consideration of Rs.90/-in total and it was in a dilapidated condition, after such purchase, the defendants reconstructed the house.

.(v) over and above that, they also occupied a sizable extent of poramboke land, adjoining the said property.

.(vi) Absolutely there was no liability to pay any damages for use and occupation as claimed in the plaint.

Accordingly, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked on his side. On the defendants side D1 examined himself as D.W.1 along with one other person as D.W.2 and no document was marked on the defendants side.

5. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant preferred this appeal on the following grounds among others.

.(a) the judgment and decree of the trial Court are against law and weight of evidence.

(b) the trial Court, after correctly disbelieving the version of the defendants that they purchased the properties under oral sale, fell into error in expecting the plaintiff to prove his title over the suit property.

.(c) the trial Court was also not justified in holding that Ex.A17-th