The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of examining attesting witnesses and the need for caution in assessing suspicious circumstances when analyzing the validity of a Will.

G. RAJASURIA, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff filed this appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 31.1.1995 passed by the learned Principle Subordinate Judge, Erode, in O.S. No. 265 of 1993, which was filed by the plaintiff as against the defendants for declaration of her title to the suit property and for delivery of possession.

2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:

(a) One Chinnamoopan had a son by name Ponnusamy (D1) and a daughter, namely, Thangammal. A division of status took place between Chinnamooppan and D1 herein. Thereafter, Chinnamooppan purchased a vacant site measuring 12 cents as per sale Deed dated 21.5.1965 from Vijayapurimooppan and others, from out of his own funds and raised two anganam thatched houses and one tiled anganam house.

(b) As per Settlement Deed dated 10.12.1973, the said Chinnamooppan settled the suit property in favour of his daughter Thangammal, wife of Koolamooppan, whereupon, she started enjoying it as the absolute owner. She also built two tiled houses in the suit property and enjoyed the same by leasing them out to various persons and subsequently it was leased out to D2. D1 was a bachelor. The said Thangammal executed a registered 'Will' dated 17.10.1989 in favour of Thyammal, who happened to be the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff's husband's brother- Chinnakutti- mooppan.

(c) Thangammal died on 8.2.1990, whereupon her 'Will" came into force. D2 as a tenant of the suit property, continued to pay the rents to the plaintiff. He wanted to purchase the suit property from the plaintiff, but the negotiation did not fructify. However, D2 somehow or other managed to get a registered sale Deed dated 16.9.1992 from D1 relating to the suit property. Such a sale is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3. Per contra, gain saying and challenging the allegations and averments in the plaint, D2 filed the written statement with various averments. The pith and marrow of them would run thus:

Chinnamooppan did not purchase, as per the sale Deed dated 21.5.1965, an extent of 12 cents of vacant land from out of his own funds and he did not raise houses thereon from his own source as contended in the plaint. However, Thangammal constructed two tiled houses and she had been leasing out the same to various persons and later it was leased out to D2. The 'Will' dated 17.10.1989 purported to have been executed by Thayammal in favour of the plaintiff, is false. The plaintiff is not related to Thangammal, who died interstate. D2 is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration of the suit property from D1. Mutation was effected in the Revenue records in the name of D2 and he has been paying tax for the suit property. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During the trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 apart from examining one Kannian as P.W.2 and Venkatachalam as P.W.3 and marked four documents, namely, Exhibit P-1 to P-4 on her side. On the defendants' side, the second defendant examined himself as DW1 and also exhibited three documents, namely, Exhibit D1 to D3. D1 remained ex-parte before the trial Court.

5. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court in dismissing the suit, the plaintiff filed the present appeal on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus:

The judgment and decree of the trial Court is against law and weight of evidence. The trial Court was wrong in rejecting the evidence, which proved the due execution of the 'Will'. The trial Court should not have disbelieved the evidence of P.W.3 merely based on certain defects in his deposition. The approach of the trial Court in analysing the evidence relating to the 'Will' was not correct. The evidence on record evinced and established that the defendants, after knowing