1. This second appeal is focused by the defendants, inveighing the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2001 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai in A.S.No.129 of 2000 in reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2000 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar in O.S.No.35 of 1999.

2. The parties, for thesake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

a. Sampath, the respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.35 of 1999 for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit scheduled properties.

b. Written statement was filed by D2, which was adopted by other defendants, resisting the suit.

c. Whereupon issues were framed by the trial court.

d. Up went the trial, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 along with PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A12. On the defendants' side, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B1 to B29 were marked.

e. Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit in toto.

f. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff preferred appeal. Whereupon, the first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit in toto.

g. Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, this second appeal has been focused on various grounds suggesting various substantial questions of law.

h. My learned predecessor, while admitting the second appeal, formulated the following substantial questions of law:

i) Whether the finding of the first appellate court that Ex.B29, the Will executed by Ramabadra Naidu should be treated as a suspicious document is legally sustainable in view of the evidence of D.Ws.3 to 5?

(ii) Whether the finding of the first appellate court that suit item 15 is not the self acquired property of the second appellant is legally sustainable inasmuch as the second appellant was employed in a co-operative society, and from that income he purchased the suit 15th item?

4. Heard both sides.

5. Both these points are taken together for discussion as they are inter-linked and interwoven, inter-connected and entwined with each other.

6. Indubitably and indisputably, incontrovertibly and unarguably one Ramabadra Naidu was the original owner of the suit item Nos.1 to 14 specified in the schedule of the plaint. He had three daughters, viz., Janobai Ammal, Kasthuri Ammal and Vegavathi. Vegavathi died issue less. Janobai Ammal died leaving behind her only son, viz., Sampath, the plaintiff as her unique legal heir. D1 is Kasthuri Ammal and D2 is the husband of D1. D3 and D4 are brothers of D2.

7. It is the case of the plaintiff that item No.15 of the suit scheduled property was purchased in the name of D2 from out of the income derived from the item Nos.1 to 14 and that should also be included in the partition.

8. Whereas the defendants would come forward with a case, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

(i) The said Ramabadra Naidu during his life time was looked after by Kasthuri Ammal exclusively and he out of love and affection towards her, bequeathed item Nos.1 to 14 in her favour by the unregistered Will Ex.B29 dated 10.12.1975. Inasmuch as the plaintiff Sampath was motherless, D1 and D2 looked after him as their own son and nurtured him and ultimately solemnised his marriage also and made him to reside in the old house, which is adjacent to their house. While so, the plaintiff developed some suspicion and animosity as against D1 and D2 and filed the suit baselessly.

(ii) On the death of Ramabadra Naidu in the year 1976, the Will came into effect and it was acted upon. In fact, it is the case of the defendants' that as per the mandates in the Will of the testator, D1 discharged the debts incurred by Ramabadra Naidu. D1 sold the suit item Nos.6, 10, 11 and 12 to the d