Will held true and genuine.

1. Plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The suit properties originally belonged to the joint family comprising of the plaintiff, second defendant and their father Pappiah. The plaintiff was the only son of Pappiah through his first wife Gowrammal. After the death of Gowrammal, Pappiah married Gowrammal sister Venkatammal and she died without issues and after her death, Pappiah married the first defendant and through her the second defendant was born. The plaintiff, second defendant and their father constituted a Hindu Joint family. When the plaintiff was 10 years old, he was given training by his father Pappiah for the barber work and the plaintiff was also assisting him in his barber work and he earned from that profession and out of the earnings derived from that profession, the plaintiff and his father Pappiah saved much and from the joint exertion made by them the father purchased common half share of the suit property under registered sale deed 25.8.1953. The other common half share was purchased by the brother of Pappiah Chinnakuttian and later that was also purchased by Pappiah under the registered sale deed 11.8.1955 by the common exertion of the plaintiff and his father. Thus, the joint family comprising the plaintiff and the second defendant who was then born and Pappiah became the owner of the suit property. After purchasing the suit property for the benefit of the joint family out of the earnings made by the plaintiff and Pappiah, two tiled houses were constructed in the vacant area. The plaintiff himself constructed a tiled house in the year 1974 measuring about 18 ft. x 19 ft. with the earnings derived from the saloon work at Krishnagiri. The father Pappiah was treating, possessing and enjoying the suit property as joint family properties belonging to the plaintiff, the second defendant and himself and he never claimed the suit property as his own at any point of time. The plaintiff, the second defendant and their father had been enjoying the suit property as coparceners and exercising the rights jointly. The said Pappiah was acting as kartha and as he became too old and sick, his physical and mental condition became worse day by day and it deteriorated and he became mentally unsound and he died on 31.7.1989 leaving behind him the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 as his legal heirs to succeed to his 1/3rd share in the suit property. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to 4/9th shares in the suit property as a result of death of his father. The second defendant is entitled to 4/9th share and the first defendant is entitled to 1/9th share. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The first defendant appears to have mortgaged a portion of the suit property in favour of the third defendant claiming herself to be the absolute owner. The first defendant has no manner of right over the entire suit property. Pappiah was not the absolute owner of the suit property and he could not have dealt with the entire suit property. He was mentally unsound. The first defendant claims to be the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered Will alleged to have been executed by his father Pappiah who was not in sound disposing state of mind and the Will is a forged one and it was not executed by the father. The first defendant is not willing for partition of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for portion and separate possession of his 4/9th share in the suit property.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement contending as follows:

The suit properties are the self acquired properties of Pappiah. The sale deed stands in his name who in turn executed a registered sale deed in favour of the first defendant. After the death of Gowrammal, the plaintiff came to the first defendants custody and the first defendant was nourishing him and she only conducted the marriage of the plaintiff, but the plain