The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove a Will in accordance with the law and the necessity to maintain specific demarcation mentioned in a sale deed to support a suit for partition.

1. This appeal has been directed against the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.15 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge,Pondicherry at Karaikal.

2. The admitted case of the parties is that one Kannusamy Padayachi had three sons by name Natesan, Thambusamy and Rangasamy and the plaintiff is the daughter of Rengasamy. The children of Thambusamy are defendants 1 to 5. The only contesting defendant is 5th defendant(now after amendment 10th defendant).

3. According to the plaintiff, Kannusamy Padayachi was the grand father of the plaintiff and the defendants. According to the plaintiff, Kannusamy Padayachi had executed a Will dated 110. 1942 in favour of her father Rengasamy Padayachi and after the execution of the said Will Kannusamy Padayachi died during 1944 and the original Will was produced in another suit in O.S.No.341 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Karaikal. Under the said Will dated 110. 1942, the plaintiff would claim that her father became entitled to all the properties of Kannusamy Padayachi. It is the further case of the plaintiff that her uncle Natesan died issueless and that her father Rengasamy Padayachi also died in the year 1979 at Singapore leaving her widow Mariammal and only daughter, the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, she and her mother have inherited the estate of Rengasamy Padayachi. After his death,the mother of the plaintiff also died during 1993. Both the plaintiff and the defendants are dwelling in the plaint schedule house, after the death of her mother Mariammal, the plaintiff was isolated,insulted and humiliated. The plaintiff was married to one Natarajan who is a teacher by profession. Due to some compelling necessity, the plaintiff was residing in the plaint schedule house as the sole representative of her clan. During the year 1994, the defendants produced a registration copy of a sale deed dated 27. 1956 purporting to be a sale of a portion of the suit property by Rengasamy Padayachi in favour of the father of the defendants viz., Thambusamy Padayachi. As per the description in the said sale deed, the western half of the brick built tiled house and eastern half of Valaikollai were sold under the sale deed. The recital in the sale deed reads that Rengasamy Padayachi became the owner of entire plaint schedule property through the sale deed dated 110. 1942 said to have been executed by Kannusamy Padayachi in favour of Rengasamy Padayachi. There is also boundary description for the property sold under Ex A2 sale deed. But the present boundaries for the property sold under Ex A2 are different. The plaintiff reliably learns that the defendants have paid property tax for the property sold in favour of their father under the sale deed dated 27. 1956. But the fruits in the Vallakollai were being enjoyed by the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants filed a suit in O.S.No.341 of 1993 for injunction before the District Munsif, Karaikal alleging that the plaintiff is taking steps to forcibly evict the defendants from the suit property. But the plaintiff herein did not contest the said suit. The filing of the suit itself will indicate that the plaintiff cannot reside in the suit house any more. Even though, the properties sold under sale deed dated 27. 1956 were shown to be on the west, actually there was no demarcation for the said property of land with specific measurements. The enjoyment is overlapping. The possession is not exclusive. Hence, actual ½ of the property is to be partitioned. Once the partition is effected then it will be possible for the plaintiff to demarcate her property to that of the property sold to the defendants. The defendants are legal representatives of Thambusamy Padayachi. Hence they are entitled for the distribution of share of Thambusamy Padayachi. Hence the suit for partition of plaintiffs ½ share in the plaint "A" schedule property and also in the plaint "B"schedule property.

4. Defendants 1 to 4 re