The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption of marriage based on long cohabitation and joint living, and the due execution of a Will, must be proved in accordance with the law to claim any right under the Will.

1. The sixth defendant is the appellant.

2. The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.25 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Krishnagiri for declaration of her title to the suit properties and for injunction on the basis of the Will dated 15.7.1992 alleged to have been executed by her alleged husband Che.Munisamy Chettiar. The sixth defendant, the appellant herein and other defendants contested the suit stating that the first respondent/plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife of their father Che.Munisamy Chettiar and the first respondent/plaintiff was the wife of Marimuthu Gounder and she got two daughters through him and she also admitted in other proceedings that she was the widow of Marimuthu Gounder and therefore, she cannot claim the status of the widow of Che.Munisamy Chettiar. They further contended that the alleged Will dated 15.7.1992 was not executed by their father and it was a forged document and the testator was not in a sound and disposing state of mind to execute the said document and there are various suspicious circumstances surrounding the document.

3. The Trial Court held that having regard to the long cohabitation between Munisamy Chettiar and the first respondent and the fact that the first respondent was admittedly living with Munisamy Chettiar for more than twenty years, led to the presumption that she was the wife of Munisamy Chettiar and the Will was proved in the manner known to law and one of the attesting witnesses was examined to prove the due execution of the Will and the Will was also a registered one and the first respondent/plaintiff also proved that subsequent to the execution of the Will, the testator Munisamy Chettiar executed sale deeds in favour of P.Ws.4 to 6 and Munisamy Chettiar died four years later and therefore, the Will was a genuine one and the first respondent/plaintiff got title to the property under the Will and decreed the suit. The lower appellate court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and hence, the second appeal.

4. The following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission of the second appeal:-

"1. Whether the presumption drawn by the courts below that both Munisamy Chettiar and Saroja Ammal were living as husband and wife for the long time?

2. Whether Ex.A9 has been proved as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, coupled with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act?"

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that having regard to Ex.B1 sale deed wherein the first respondent/plaintiff described herself as wife of Marimuthu Gounder, the birth certificate of the daughters of the first respondent/plaintiff viz., Exs.B2 and B3 wherein they were described as daughters of Marimuthu Gounder and the first respondent, Ex.B5 marriage invitation of the daughter of the first respondent and Ex.B7, the affidavit filed by the first respondent in C.C.No.543 of 1977 wherein she claimed herself as the wife of Marimuthu Gounder and filed the complaint for defamation for having referred herself as the concubine of Munisamy Chettiar would prove that she was not be the wife of Munisamy Chettiar and even assuming that Munisamy Chettiar and the first respondent/plaintiff were living together in the same house that will not lead to the presumption that she is the widow of Munisamy Chettiar when she is admittedly the wife of Marimuthu Gounder. He further submitted that the court below, without properly appreciating the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and the signatures found in the Will and the admission of PW2, one of the attesting witnesses and the admission of PW1, the first respondent that in or about the time of execution of the Will, the testator Munisamy Chettiar has undergone operation and his right toe and another finger were removed and considering these facts, the courts below ought to have held that the Will was not executed by Munisamy Chettiar and mere registration will not le