The Plaintiff, who lost his case before both the courts below, has filed this Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 1.4.2002 passed in AS.No.98/1997 by the learned Additional District Judge, Vellore, confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 27.3.1997 passed in OS.No.112/1989 by the learned District Munsif, Vellore.

2. The case of the Plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is as follows:-

a. The suit property and other properties belonged to the Plaintiffs mother Chinnakulandaiamal, who was in possession and enjoyment of the same and she executed a registered Will bequeathing the property described in "A" in the Will to the Plaintiffs brothers son and "B" to the Plaintiff. Within a few days, she passed away. Thereafter, in the oral partition, the Plaintiff took separate possession of the schedule mentioned property and the patta also stands in his name and he is paying kist. While so, the Defendant and her son attempted to interfere with his possession, setting up a false Will of Chinnakulandaiammal dated 13.2.1982 and relying on the decree obtained by her in OS.No.2405/1982 and hence, the present suit has been filed for declaration and injunction.

3. The case of the Defendant, as set out in the Written Statement, is as follows:-

a. The suit property belonged to Chinnakulandaiammal and the Defendant is her daughter-in-law. The Will dated 12.2.1982 propounded by the Plaintiff was obtained by coercion. On 13.2.1982, she had executed her last Will canceling the earlier Will dated 12.2.1982. The brother of the Plaintiff Subramniya Gounder and others have filed OS.No.978/1982 and the son of the Defendant also filed a suit in OS.No.2405/1982. In both the suits, the Plaintiff was a party. OS.NO.978/1982 was dismissed and OS.No.2405/1982 was decreed and it is in final decree stage and therefore, the present suit is barred by principles of Res-Judicata. The Defendant also filed a suit in OS.NO.456/1977 for maintenance against her husband Plaintiff and their mother and the same was decreed. In execution of the decree, she has purchased the property in the court auction. The Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and the kist receipt filed does not relate to the suit property.

4. The Defendant filed an additional Written Statement before the Trial Court, contending that the Plaintiff, who was a party in OS.No.2405/1982, having lost the suit, filed the present suit to cause trouble to the Defendant; that in IA.No.271/1989, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff made an endorsement that subject to the result of OS.No.2405/1982, the injunction application may be decided and now he cannot say that the decree in OS.No.2405/1982 is a collusive one; that the Will in favour of the Defendant has been approved in OS.No.2405/1982 and the oral partition pleaded is not true; that except the property allotted to the son of the Defendant in the suit, the other properties remain undivided between the Plaintiff and his brother/defendants husband; that pending the suit, the defendants husband died intestate; that even as per the Plaintiffs admission, the defendants husband is entitled to 1/2 share in the suit property and therefore, the Defendant and her son are entitled to undivided 1/2 share and the suit against the co-owner for declaration will not lie and in OS.NO.456/1977, the Defendant had been allotted 1/3rd share and the same has also been included in this suit as a vacant site and the property allotted in OS.NO.2405/1982 also has been included.

5. The Plaintiff filed a reply statement contending that the Defendant is the wife of the Plaintiffs brother and she never lived with her husband and she had deserted him; that she had also initiated litigations against him and other family members and she did not participate in any of the family affairs and did not know the happenings in the family; that after the death of his mother, the Plaintiff and his brother Subramani divided the property in an oral partition and