The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to prove the execution of a Will and remove any suspicion surrounding its execution, emphasizing the importance of providing cogent and convincing evidence to satisfy the conscience of the Court.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.217 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam are the appellants.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of their 3/8 share in the suit properties claiming that the suit properties belonged to their mother and the mother died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2 and four other sons namely Dayalan, Lingesan, Ekanandan and Jagadasethalu Karunyamoorthy. According to the plaintiffs, after the release deeds executed by her brothers relinquishing their shares in the joint property, the mother Govindammal got 1/25 share and she died on 10.3.1985 intestate and therefore they are entitled to 3/8 share in the properties left by the mother. It is further stated that after the death of the mother, on 29.12.1986 Dayalan executed a registered release deed relinquishing his share in favour of his brother Karthikeyan the 2nd defendant and Karunyamoorthy. Another brother Lingesan executed a release deed in favour of the 2nd defendant and Karunyamoorthy and on 13.6.1994 Karunyamoorthy executed a release deed in favour of the 1st defendant Mayakesavan in respect of his property. Ekanandan died in the year 1979 and Karunyamoorthy also died as a Bachelor. The 1st defendant Mayakesavan died on 11.1.2008 leaving behind the defendants 5 to 9 as his legal heirs and the 3rd defendant claims to have purchased the property and other defendants are daughters and they are entitled to 9/40 shares in the properties left by their mother.

3. The defence of the defendants was that Govindammal did not die intestate as alleged by the plaintiffs and she left a Will dated 7.3.1984 bequeathing her share to the defendants 1 and 2 and Dayalan and Karunyamoorthy and that Will was executed by her while she was in a sound and disposing state of mind and the defendants 1 and 2 and other two brothers Dayalan and Karunyamoorthy divided the properties they got under the Will under a registered partition deed dated 8.9.2000 and they are enjoying their respective shares and therefore, the plaintiffs/ appellants have no right over the same. The 3rd defendant claims to have purchased 47 cents out of 2 acres and 16 cents in the 6th item of plaint schedule from the 1st defendant and Karunyamoorthy and claims to be in possession of the property.

4. The trial Court held that the Will was not proved and Govindammal died intestate and hence the appellants and plaintiffs were entitled to 9/40 share. The first appellate Court held that the Will was proved and therefore the plaintiffs cannot claim any share in the properties.

5. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal:

Whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that Ex.B1 Will was validly executed and whether the respondents proved the execution of the Will ?

6. Ex.B1 is an unregistered Will alleged to have been executed by Govindammal and the Will was sought to be proved by examining DW2 and DW3. DW2 is not an attesting witness and DW3 is the attesting witness and DW2 gave in his evidence that the Will was produced by the deceased 1st defendant Mayakesavan in the Panchayat and as per the decision of the Panchayat the Will was handed over to him and on the request of the defendants he produced the Will before the Court. DW3 is the attesting witness who gave evidence that he and other witnesses saw the execution of the Will by the executant Govindammal and at the time of execution of the Will Govindammal was in a sound and disposing state of mind.

7. Mr. S.Parthasarathy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there is no dispute that Govindammal had 3/8 share in the suit properties and the appellants are entitled to claim 3/8 share belonged to Govindammal and having regard to the admissions and other circumstances, it cannot be stated that the respondents proved the execution of the Will in the manner known to law and the Will cannot be said to be validly