The importance of presenting best evidence to establish crucial facts in a case, and the need for objective decision-making based on concrete evidence.

1. This appeal is focussed by the first defendant as against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2003 made in O.S.No.206 of 2003, which was one for partition, on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.I) Coimbatore.

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

3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

The plaintiff filed the suit as against the two defendants for partition with the following relief:

"(a) For partition and division of the suit properties mentioned hereunder in the schedule into 3 equal share with reference to good and bad soil and allot one such share to the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession of the same;

(b) To direct the first defendant to render true and proper account regarding the other movables left by late Parameswaran; and

(c) For costs. " (extracted as such)

4. The second defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement; whereupon issues were framed.

5. During trial, the plaintiff-P.Latha examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2-Subramania Iyer and P.W.3-K.Natarajan and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. The first defendant-Mangaiarkarasi examined herself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2-Sivashankaran and Ex.B1 was marked.

6. Ultimately the trial Court passed the judgment as well as preliminary decree allotting one-third share in favour of the plaintiff in the immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and preliminary decree of the trial Court, the appellant/first defendant preferred this appeal on various grounds.

7. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

The plaintiff approached the Court with the plea that she got married the deceased Parameswaran, when he was 67 years' old. The couple lived together happily for some time and thereafter, he died leaving behind the plaintiff and his two daughters, the defendants herein, who were born through his first wife. The precise contention of the plaintiff is that the marriage between herself and the deceased Parameswaran took place on 22.01.1999 at Krishna Koil, Oppanakkara Street, Coimbatore and the said fact was got incorporated in a joint affidavit filed by both of them and attested by a notary, namely Natarajan. The defendants were not agreeable for amicable partition and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

8. The first defendant would contend that the plaintiff is an utter stranger to the deceased Parameswaran, and purely for the purpose of grabbing a share in his property, she has chosen to dish out the plea as found set out in her false plaint. It is also the contention of D1, that the deceased Parameswaran executed Ex.B1-the registered Will dated 27.10.2001, which was registered on 13.11.2001, bequeathing his entire properties in favour of the first respondent for life and absolute estate in favour of her son, who is not in the party array.

9. The second defendant would contend that the plaintiff was not legally married to Parameswaran; she cannot be given the status of the wife of Parameswaran; purely for the purpose of making the false claim in the suit, she has projected herself as the wife of Parameswaran. It is also her contention that the Will dated 27.10.2001 registered on 13.11.2001 is not a genuine Will, but the earlier Will dated 19.04.1999 registered on 20.04.1999 is the genuine Will, whereby R1 and R2 were bequeathed with the properties of Parameswaran.

Both the defendants, precisely prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

10. The gist and kernel of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/D1 would run thus:

(a) The trial Court without any solid evidence, merely on conjectures and surmises held as though a valid marriage took place between the plaintiff and the