The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution and thorough analysis in comparing disputed signatures with admitted signatures, as per Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the importance of obtaining expert opinion for proper adjudication.

1. This second appeal is focussed by the second defendant, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2009 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal in A.S.No.8 of 2005 reversing the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2005 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in O.S.No.346 of 1996.

2. The parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

a) The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.346 of 1996 seeking the following reliefs:

- to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff by dividing the suit properties in to two equal shares considering the value, soil, channel facility and cart track right and allot one such divided share to the plaintiff and direct the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of such divided share.

- to make a provision for appointment of a Commissioner to divide the suit properties as per the preliminary decree to be passed

- and to award costs of suit.

(extracted as such)

b) D1 and D2 filed separate written statements resisting the suit.

c) Whereupon, relevant issues were framed by the trial court.

d) During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A14. On the side of the defendants, the second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.B1 to B19.

e) Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit. As against which, the plaintiff preferred appeal. Whereupon, the appellate court decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

f) Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, the second defendant filed this second appeal on various grounds, suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

A] By holding that the disputed Will Ex.A13 dated 29.01.1979 is the last Will of the testator, whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is not in contradiction with the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.2915-2916 of 1996, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, that the Will dated 17.01.1979 in favour of the appellate herein is the last Will of the testator?

B] Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated in that it has sought to believe a Will produced 16 years after the death of the testator, particularly in a suit filed just immediately after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Apppeal Nos.2915-2916 of 1996?

C] Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated in that it has held, that, merely because the disputed Will Ex.A13 is not signed on every page, that, is not a reason to suspect its genuineness?

D] Whether the lower appellate court was correct in comparing the signature of the testator on the disputed Will with his signature on a sale deed which is not before court?

(extracted as such)

4. On hearing both sides, I have been of the considered view that the following substantial questions of law should be framed:

1. Whether the first appellate court was justified in comparing the disputed signature of the testator in Ex.A13, the Will dated 29.01.1979 with that of his admitted signature in the earlier documents, viz., Exs.B1 dated 16.07.1985 and B5 dated 17.11.1997 and arrive at the conclusion without taking the assistance of any handwriting expert that the signature found in Ex.A13 Will was that of the genuine signature of the testator?

2. Whether the appellant/D2 is also entitled to adduce additional evidence as prayed for in M.P.No.2 of 2009?

5. Both these points are taken together for discussion as they are inter-linked and interwoven, inter-connected and entwined with each other.

6. The undeniable and the indubitable facts would run thus:

(i) One Karuppanna Gounder happened to be the original owner of the suit properties. According to the appellant/D2 herein, he during his life time executed