The Court emphasized the importance of expert opinion and proper evidence before reversing a judgment, highlighting the need for adherence to legal provisions and principles.

1. This Second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 25.1.2005 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, in A.S.No.43 of 2001, reversing the judgment and decree dated 9.4.2001 passed by the District Munsif, Jayankondam, in O.S.No.415 of 1999, which was filed for declaration and permanent injunction.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Narratively but precisely, broadly but briefly, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(a) The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(b) The defendants filed the written statement resisting the suit.

(c) Whereupon issues were framed by the trial Court.

(d) On the plaintiff's side, the mother of the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On the defendants' side, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.Ws.2 to 5 and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked. Exs.W1 to DW6 were marked as witness documents.

(e) Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which the defendants preferred the appeal. Whereupon the appellate Court set aside the judgement and decree of the trial Court by reversing the findings and dismissed the original suit.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal on various grounds inter alia suggesting the following substantial questions of law.

"a) Whether the earlier Will dated 5.11.1988 shall override the latest Will dated 7.3.90?

b) Is it not correct to say that the latest Will itself clases all the past Wills executed by the Testator?

c) Is not the Court has got its inherent power to find out the genuinity of the Will without referring it to hand write experts?

d) When the beneficiary's right itself is in question, the sale made subsequently to third parties is valid?"

(extracted as such)

5. My learned predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law:

"Whether the findings of the lower appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial Court is based upon the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act?"

6. Heard both sides.

7. The epitome and the long and short of the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the appellant/plaintiff would run thus:

(i) The trial Court after considering the pros and cons of the matter and also the evidence of Amaravathy-the elderly lady, who happened to be the sister of the testator, gave a finding in favour of the plaintiff, whereas, the first appellate Court, without any valid reason and without considering as to whether Ex.B1-the alleged Will dated 5.11.1988 executed by the testator-Vaidyalingam in favour of defendants 1 and 2 was proved, simply decreed the suit.

(ii) The trial Court also analysed the signature of the testator in Ex.A1 and arrived at the conclusion that there was nothing to doubt the genuineness of it, whereas the first appellate was very much carried away by the absence of the caste name 'Pandaram' being suffixed to the signature of the testator, and simply held as though Ex.A1 was not proved.

(iii) The over all circumstances should have been taken into consideration, but the first appellate Court failed to take into consideration the same and decided the appeal.

8. Per contra, in a bid to torpido and pulverise and to take the edge off the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would advance his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(a) The first appellate Court correctly analysed Ex.A1, in which, at the first page there is no signature of the testator, but in the back page alone the purported signature of th