The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of due execution and attestation of Wills as mandated by the Indian Succession Act, and the admissibility of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.

1. This Appeal Suit and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal have been directed against the Judgment passed in Original Suit No.101 of 2005 and order passed in Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 by the First Additional District Court, Tiruchirapalli.

2. The respondents in Appeal Suit No.176 of 2010 as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.101 of 2005 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and also for past damages at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem, wherein the present appellants have been shown as defendants.

3. The respondent in CMA No.531 of 2011 as petitioner has filed Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 on the file of the trial Court praying to issue legal heir certificate in her favour, wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole respondent.

4. The nubble of the plaint filed in Original Suit No.101 of 2005 can be stated like thus:

The plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons of first plaintiff. The first defendant is the wife of Nagarajan. The second defendant is the wife of Chandrasekaran. The third defendant is the son of second defendant. The deceased Nagarajan and Chandrasekaran are the brothers of fourth defendant. The brother of the first plaintiff by name Appavoo Pillai in his sound disposing state of mind has executed his last Will dated 31.05.2000 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties and the same has been duly attested and registered and he passed away on 13.11.2004. Since he passed away on 13.11.2004 the Will dated 31.05.2000 has come into effect and thus, the plaintiffs have become absolute owners of the suit properties. The husbands of the defendants 1 and 2, and forth defendant are the sons of Ammathanathammal who is one of the sisters of Appavoo Pillai. Since she lost her husband, Appavoo Pillai has permitted her to live in his house. In the year 1998 a dispute has become emerged amongst Appavoo Pillai and family members of the defendants, which resulted filing of Original Suit No.600 of 1998 by the husband of the second defendant by name Chandrasekaran and the same has been dismissed on 20.09.1999. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, Appeal Suit No.177 of 1999 has been filed on the file of the Second Additional sub Court, Tiruchirapalli and the same has also been dismissed. Even during life time of Appavoo Pillai, the first plaintiff has lived in a portion of the suit properties. After the demise of Appavoo Pillai, the plaintiffs have issued a legal notice to the defendants and thereby called upon to vacate the suit properties. But the defendants have given a false reply notice. As per order passed in I.A.No.650 of 2006, the fifth defendant has been impleaded and he claimed title to the suit properties by virtue of the Will dated 25.08.2004 alleged to have been executed by the original owner of the suit properties viz. Appavoo Pillai in his favour. The Will dated 25.08.2004 is nothing but a forged one and the same does not create any interest in favour of the fifth defendant. Under the said circumstances the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.

5. In the written statement filed on the side of the third defendant it is averred that one Aynan Pillai has passed away leaving behind him his four daughters namely Seetha Ammal, Ammathanathammal, Marudambal and Janaki Ammal and two sons viz., Duraisamy and Appavoo. The said Appavoo has shown affection towards Ammathanathammal and her children and subsequently a flimsy misunderstanding has arisen which resulted in filing Original Suit No.600 of 1998 and the same has been dismissed and against the Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.600 of 1998, Appeal Suit No.177 of 1999 has been preferred and the same has also been dismissed. During life time of Appavoo Pillai he has not instituted any suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties. It is false to say that he executed his last Will dated 31.05.2