The strict proof of the execution of a Will, the burden of proof on the propounder, and the binding nature of land acquisition proceedings as Res Judicata.

1. The appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 31.01.1984 made in O.S.No.667 of 1979 and in O.S.No.440 of 1982, on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli. The Suit in O.S.No.667 of 1979 was filed for declaration that the suit properties A and B schedule belonged to the Trust and for consequential relief of recovery of possession and injunction.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The suit property, in Town Survey No.734 and old Survey No.302 originally belonged to one Krishna Lala. The Suit property was known as Kishna Lala Gardens, and it is situated at Srirangam, consisted of a Kal Mandapam, Nandavanam (Flower Garden)and an Anjaneyar Temple. The Madam is known as Utharadas Madam. Krishna Lala died leaving behind his wife Chandra Bai and his only daughter Saraswathi Bai Ammal as his legal heirs. Krishna Lala enjoyed the property by leasing them and was conducting the Dharmams and also conducted Poojas from the income of the properties. Thereafter, his daughter Saraswathi Ammal was in possession and enjoyment of the property. The said Saraswathi Ammal had executed a registered Will, dated 04.02.1949, creating a Trust and appointing the plaintiff, i.e., Munisami Konar, as Executive Trustee. The first defendant is the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Collector of Tiruchirappalli and the second defendant is the Srirangam Co-operative Building Society, represented by its President. The other defendants are the alleged purchasers of the property from the second defendant. Since the defendants have trespassed into the property, suits were filed for declaration and for recovery of possession. Initially, the suit in O.S.No.667 of 1979 was filed and latter O.S.No.440 of 1982 was filed.

3. In both the suits, the second defendant contested the Suit in the capacity of beneficiary under a land acquisition. The case of the second defendant is that the suit property was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, for the purpose of forming a Co-operative Colony. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Co-operative Housing Scheme, had acquired the property and an award was passed on 211. 1951 and had deposited the entire award amount into the Court. The property was allotted to the second defendant, who is the Co-operative Society, which in turn, allotted the suit property to its members and they have put up construction and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property.

4. The suit was so contested and on framing of triable issues and on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli found that the suit property was acquired by the Government and the same has been allotted to the various defendants and they have also put up constructions and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for a declaration regarding B schedule property. However, the Court had found that A schedule property is still vacant and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the A schedule property and thereby, granted the relief of declaration of both the items of the suit properties, but, granted the relief of recovery of possession only with rgard to A schedule property.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the defendants 2 to 9 have preferred the present appeal on various grounds. The important grounds taken by the defendants in the appeal is that the plaintiff has not proved the title and the execution of Will, as required by the law and without setting aside the award passed in proceedings L.A.O.P.No.62 of 1952, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Yet another plea was also taken that the plaintiff had the knowledge of acqutition in the year 1967, the suit was filed only in the year 1979 and the same is bared by limitation.

6. The facts elicited from the evidence are as follows. The suit property originally belonged to one Krishnalala and he had obtained the