1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 1990 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal is the appellant. He filed the suit for partition of his 2/6th share in "A" to "D" schedule properties and the suit was partly decreed and preliminary decree was passed declaring 2/6th share in the Schedule "B" to "D" in favour of the plaintiff and in respect of "A" schedule property, the suit claim was rejected and aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

(a) Late Mohamed Zackaria and Fathima Ammal were the parents of the plaintiff. Apart from defendants 1, 2 and 3, they have another daughter, namely, Jameela Ummal, who died in the year 1987. The 9th defendant is the husband of the 1st defendant. The 8th defendant is the son of the second defendant and the 4th defendant is the husband of the deceased daughter, Jameela Ummal. The 13th defendant is the husband of the third defendant. On the eve of the marriage of the first defendant, the plaintiff's father late Mohamed Zackaria gave specific portions consisting of north eastern room and its adjacent verandah of the "A" schedule house with a right of common enjoyment of passage, and access to backyard to the first defendant and put her in possession of those portions. The property which was given to the first defendant by way of gift by the father Mohamed Zackaria was 1/4th of the whole of the "A" schedule house and the remaining portion in "A" schedule was enjoyed by the father along with his wife and other children. The father also owned lands in Vizhudhur Village in Neravy Commune, which is more fully described in "B" schedule property and the property of the father in Kothamangalam Village is shown as "C" schedule property. The properties owned by the mother is described in the "D" schedule. The parents were under care and custody of the plaintiff's family who were residing in the "A" schedule property. The plaintiff used to go abroad and parents were taken care of by his wife. The plaintiff's father was bed-ridden for about a year prior to his death and during his last days, he was not in full possession of his faculties and he was also very moody and remained indifferent to the surroundings and was also not responsive. He died on 6.4.1983 at Karaikal when the plaintiff was abroad. The plaintiff's mother also died on 19.11.1984 at Karaikal leaving behind "D" schedule property. The first defendant and her husband were residing in the portion gifted to the first defendant and they were very dominant. Therefore, after the death of the parents, the plaintiff was not willing to have enjoyment of "A" schedule property and wanted to have an amicable division of the property one year before filing of the suit. At that time, 9th defendant, the husband of the first defendant claimed larger share in the "A" schedule property stating that Mohamed Zackaria left a Will by which certain portions were allotted to the daughter, the first defendant.

(b) According to the plaintiff, his father died intestate and he did not leave any Will and he was not in a sound disposing state of mind during the alleged period of execution of the Will and he was not in a position to exercise his free Will. It is further stated that taking advantage of their proximity and the absence of the plaintiff, the first defendant in collusion with the 9th defendant must have fraudulently obtained the Will and therefore, the Will is void. Further, the father cannot dispose the entire properties under a Will and on that ground also, the Will is void. It is also stated that the alleged Will is also affected by the doctrine of "Marz-ul-maut" (death illness) and therefore, the Will projected by the defendants 1 to 9 is void and no one can claim any right under the Will. It is also stated that some transactions have also taken place under the Will in favour of the defendants 6 and 7 who were the children of the first and ninth defendants and also in favour of the f