1948. The plaintiff, therefore, claims that the defendants who got unlawful possession of the properties taking advantage of the pendency of the testimentary proceedings should be directed to deliver those properties to her. The suit was contested on various grounds which are reflected in the issues framed in the case by the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit as prayed for, directing symbolical possession of the undivided properties and actual possession in regard to the separate items of properties. An appeal was filed to the lower Court by the first defendant. The first defendant as stated already is the son of a step-brother of the deceased Perumal Reddiar. The learned District Judge found that on the date of the death of Perumal Reddiar the properties did not belong to him. In coming to that conclusion the learned Judge made some mistakes. He has for instance held that Exhibit A-2 could not be relied on as an admission on the part of the contesting defendant that the properties belonged to Perumal Reddiar. It is now found that the contesting defendants were responsible for the fabrication of Exhibit A-2 and if they themselves in their fabricated will all

Click Here to Read the rest of this document