The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for due execution of a Will under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and the rights of the widow and son under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.

1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 4.1.2010 passed by the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No. II, Gobichettipalayam, confirming the judgement and decree dated 28.8.2008 passed by the First Additional Sub-Court Gobichetti- palayam, in O.S. No. 110 of 2002, which is one for partition.

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

3. The warp and woof of the gername fact absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

(i) The original deceased plaintiff-Karupayal filed the suit for partition as against her son-D1-Ponnusamy and D2-Karuppusamy-the purchaser of suit property from D1-Ponnusamy.

(ii) The gist and kernel of the averments in the plaint would be to the effect that the suit property originally belonged to Palanisamy-the husband of Karupayal and father of D1-Ponnusamy. The said Palanisamy died intestate during the year 1995; whereupon, his wife Karupayal and son-Ponnusamy became the class-I heirs, entitled to equal shares in the suit property.

(iii) While so, D1-Ponnusamy disregarding and violating the right of the plaintiff, alienated the entire suit property in favour of D2, so as to defraud the share of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for partition.

4. Pending trial itself, Karupayal died. Whereupon her legalee, namely, Dhanalakshmi-the present second appellant herein, who also happened to be the estranged wife of Ponnusamy, got herself impleaded on the strength of the unregistered Will dated 2.7.2003 executed by Karupayalh in favour of Dhanalakshmi.

5. D1 remained ex-parte.

6. Refuting and challenging, inveighing and contradicting the averments/allegations in the plaint, D2 filed the written statement, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(i) The said Karupayal, during her life time relinquished her right over the suit property and in fact, in addition to the suit property, various other items of properties also were sold by D1-Ponnusamy in favour of various persons but those sales were not challenged.

(ii) The principle of estoppel would be operatring as against Karupayal.

(iii) D2 also filed the additional written statement contenting that the ‘Will’ relied on by the second appellant herein was not genuine and it is a forged and fabricated one.

(iv) Accordingly D2 would pray for dismissal of the suit.

(v) Up went the trial, during which, the second plaintiff-Dhanalakshmi examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exhibits A-1 to A-9 were marked on the plaintiffs’ side. On the defendants’ side, the second defendant-Karuppusamy was examined as D.W.1 along with one Saravanakumar as D.W.2 and Exhibits B-1 to B-29 were marked on their side.

(vi) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit. Whereupon the said Dhanalakshmi preferred appeal on various grounds.

(vii) Pending appeal, the said D1-Ponnusamy died. Whereupon, his legal heirs-R2 and R3 in this appeal, were impleaded.

(viii) The first appellate Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgement and decree of the trial Court.

7. Chellenging and impugning the judgements and decrees of both the Courts below, this second appeal has been focussed on various ground and also suggesting substantial questions of law.

8. Despite printing the name of the respondents, no one appeared and there is no representation also.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who would pyramid his arguments, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

(i) The Courts below even though held in favour of Karupayal that she being one of the legal heirs of Palanisamy, inherited the property of Palanisamy, yet they disbelieved the unregistered Will-Exhibit A-9 without any basis whatsoever and that too, belittling and slighting, ignoring and pooh-poohing the evidence of the attesting witnesses, namely, P.W.2-Ponnusamy and P.W.3-Mani.

(ii) Strictly in accorance wit