( 1. ) THIS second appeal is focussed by the defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2007 made in A.S.No.93 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Ambasamudram, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2005 made in O.S.No.276 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram.

( 2. ) THE parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The plaintiff - Perumal, filed the suit for declaration of his title over the suit property and for recovery of possession based on the registered Will dated 15.02.1990 executed by the testator - Lakshmiammal.

( 3. ) THE defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the said Will relied on by the plaintiff is not a genuine one and the defendant's husband Krishnasamy happened to be the brother of the said testator - Lakshmiammal, who died issueless and her husband also predeceased her. Whereupon, Krishnasamy enjoyed the suit property and thereafter, he executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendant; whereby she has been in possession and enjoyment as full owner.

( 4. ) WHEREUPON the trial Court framed the relevant issues.

During trial, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked on the side of the defendant.

( 5. ) ULTIMATELY, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed.

( 6. ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff preferred the present second appeal on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

"(a) Whether the courts below are right in applying the principle of suspicious circumstances excluding the natural heir from inheriting the property under Will to the case when there is no natural heir to the Testator and the person claiming right is only the heir by law of inheritance and hence the judgment of the courts below are liable to be interfered with by this Hon'ble Court? (b) Whether the courts below were committed wrong in not considering the correct interpretation of "Natural Heir" and "Heir by law of inheritance" while deciding suspicious circumstances excluding the heir by law of inheritance under Will from inheriting the property and hence the judgment of the courts below warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court? (c) Whether under law is it necessary for the propounder to prove the suspicious circumstance of exclusion of others from inheriting the property when the testator of the will had no issues and stated the reason for executing the will also? (d) Whether the finding of the courts below that the appellant has not disproved the fact that the testator did not know to sign is against the settled principle of law that a person who pleads has to prove and hence the judgment of the courts below warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court? (e) Whether the finding of the courts below that PW-2 has not specifically stated that the Testator put her thumb impression in Ex.A3 in his presence is without considering the evidence available on record and is perverse amounts to non-consideration of evidence available on record and hence the same has to be interfered by this Hon'ble Court?"

(extracted as such.)

My learned Predecessor formulated the following substantial questions of law: "Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are perverse on account of its misconstruction of document in Ex.A.3?" (extracted as such.)

( 7. ) ON hearing both sides, I framed the following additional substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether both the Courts below were justified in disregarding the Will - Ex.A.3 in view of the suspicious circumstances namely, (i) participation of the bene