1. This second appeal is focussed by D3, inveighing the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2001 passed by the learned III Additional District Court, Salem, in A.S.No.57 of 2000 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.1.2000 passed by the Sub Court, Namakkal, in O.S.No.69 of 1995, which is one for partition.

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

3. Compendiously and concisely the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

(i) The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit for partition seeking the following reliefs:

"a. To direct the division of Item-1 of the schedule into three equal shares by metes and bounds after making provision for the debts and allotting one such share to the plaintiff putting him in exclusive possession of the same;

b. to direct the division of each of Items-2 to 5 into four equal shares by metes and bounds and allotting one such share in each item to the plaintiff putting him in exclusive possession of the same;

c. to award costs of the suit."

(extracted as such)

(ii) D3 filed the written statement resisting the suit.

(iii) D1 and D2 remained ex-parte.

(iv) Whereupon issues were framed. Up went the trial, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 to 4 on his side and marked Ex.A1. On the defendants' side, the third defendant-Thiagarajan was examined as D.W.1 along with D.W.2-Pulla Gounder and D.W.3-Subramanian-the scribe and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked on their side. Exs.X1 to X6 were marked as Court documents.

(v) Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit partly in respect of item No.1 only and dismissed the suit in respect of the other items, so to say, items 2 to 5.

(vi) Challenging and impugning the judgment decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the appeal on various grounds.

(vii) The first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit for partition even in respect of items 2 to 5 also.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, this second appeal has been filed by D3 on various grounds and also suggesting the substantial questions of law.

5. My learned predecessor formulated the following substantial question of law:

"Whether on the evidence adduced and the admissions made by the plaintiff witnesses, the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the provisions of Section 63(2) of the Indian Succession Act, have not been fully complied with and hence it cannot come to the conclusion that the propounder has proved the execution of the Will?"

6. Heard both sides. On hearing both sides, I though fit to reformulate the substantial questions of law thus:

(i) Whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, without adverting to the factual discussions and the findings of the trial Court?

(ii) Whether the first appellate Court was justified in disbelieving the 'Will' on the following grounds:

(a) the notary public, who purportedly attested the Will-Ex.B2, was not examined.

(b) the Draft Will has not been produced;

(c) One Perumal in whose house the Will was executed was not examined.

(d) D.Ws.2 and 3 did not speak about the soundness of the health of the testeator.

(iii) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgment of the first appellate Court?

7. All the above substantial questions of law are taken together for discussion as they are interwoven and interconnected, interlinked and entwined with one another.

8. On the above substantial questions of law both sides advanced their arguments.

9. The learned counsel for the first appellant/D3 would pyramid his arguments, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

(i) The trial Court adverting to Section 8 of the Notaries Act and Rule 11 of the Notaries Rules, appropri