The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to dispel suspicious circumstances and doubts surrounding the execution and attestation of a Will, as well as the interpretation of legal provisions related to the existence of marriage.

Ms. PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J.

One unfortunate Masi Ambalam died on 1.11.1987. We do not know whether his end came by fair means or foul. It is evident that the parties herein including his only daughter were more interested in the suit properties than him.

2. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent, is the daughter of Masi Ambalam. She filed the suit for injunction and declaration that she is the owner of 'A' schedule property, for partition of 'B' schedule property and for injunction and alternatively for possession. Her mother pre-deceased her father. There was no other issue. Masi Ambalam died intestate. The plaintiff learnt that her father was abducted by the third defendant on 8.9.1987 and later he was reported to have died on 1.11.1987, allegedly killed by the third defendant and his henchmen. As the sole legal heir of Masi Ambalam, the plaintiff performed the Karumadi on 16.11.1987 at Tiruvayyaru. The plaintiff had also given a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruvonam regarding the abduction. Masi Ambalam was in possession of the suit property till his death and after his death, the plaintiff went and took possession of her father's property. The plaintiff claimed half share in suit 'B' schedule 25 to 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39 and 44 and 45. According to her, the defendants 1 to 5 have no title. The defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of the fourth defendant through her deceased husband one Malayappan. The fifth defendant was associating herself with Masi Ambalam for some time. She was not a permanently kept concubine of Masi Ambalam. In 1986, Masi Ambalam was very old and afflicted with blood pressure and other ailments. So, the plaintiff made a publication in Dinamalar claiming her right and stating that some persons were taking advantage of the old-age of her father to create certain documents. The plaintiff understood that some persons like defendants 1 to 5 in the name of Masi Ambalam belatedly published a repudiation in Dinamalar on 1.10.1986. There was no marriage between Masi Ambalam and the fifth defendant. The sixth defendant is an agnate of Masi Ambalam. The plaintiff claimed that she was entitled to all the properties mentioned in Plaint 'A' schedule and half undivided share in 'B' schedule along with the sixth defendant.

3. Written statements were filed by the third and fifth defendants denying the averments made in the plaint. According to the third defendant, it was the plaintiff's husband who had spirited away Masi Ambalam. He had preferred a complaint to the effect that the plaintiff's husband and his associates had abducted Masi Ambalam, and the fifth defendant had also filed a Habeas Corpus Petition. The third defendant's father died, when he was a child. Masi Ambalam had been bringing up the third defendant and his brothers and managing the family properties. Masi Ambalam performed the marriage of the plaintiff and gifted valuable jewels, etc. In fact, the plaintiff and her husband wanted Masi Ambalam to give them all the properties, which he was not willing to do. While in a sound and disposing mind, Masi Ambalam had executed a Will on 17.11.1983 and produced the same for registration on 21.1.198The plaintiff is not entitled to inherit the properties of Masi Ambalam. The fifth defendant, who is the second wife of Masi Ambalam, had a son who died, when he was three years old in or about 1964 and, therefore, the fifth defendant is entitled to her share in the properties of Masi Ambalam and also as the mother of her deceased son. The illness of Masi Ambalam is exaggerated. The so-called publication itself was made by the plaintiff and her associates, which has been repudiated by Masi Ambalam during his life time. The fifth defendant is entitled to half share in the properties. The fifth defendant also filed a separate written statement in which, she had stated that the plaintiff had pestered her father to give the properties, which he was not willing to do. She has given her own version of the de