The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of joint and mutual Will, revocation by the survivor, and the burden of proof in establishing the validity of a Will.

1. These two Second Appeals is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2013 made in A.S.No.33 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2012 made in O.S. No. 593 of 2010 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Madurai and the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2013 made in A.S.34 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2012 made in O.S.No.631 of 2010 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Madurai.

2. While admitting the above two second appeals, the following substantial question of law was framed:

(i) Whether the Will dated 10.04.1991 is true, genuine and having legal validity so as to supersede the Will dated 24.10.1982 ?

3. The above two second appeals heard together and disposed by the Common Judgment for the purpose of joint disposal of these Appeals, the Appellants in S.A.No.597 of 2013 will be treated as the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.631 of 2010, which is for partition and separate possession of share and consequential relief of permanent injunction.

4. The short facts of the cases are as follows:

The suit property belonged to one Rathinam and he purchased the same in his wife name Mrs.Mariammal. The above said Rathinam and Mariammal are the parents of the plaintiff Siriyapushpam and the defendants 1 to 10. The said Rathinam acquired the suit schedule property along with other properties as mentioned in the Will dated 24.10.1982, which was executed by both the husband and wife. The said properties were self acquired properties of the above said Rathinam, who purchased 3rd and 4th items of the Will in the name of his wife Mariammal. Thereafter a joint and mutual Will was executed by them with an intention to bequeath to their sons excluding one Mr. Ganesan, who relinquished his right over the said property as son of them.

5. The above said Rathinam died on 10.04.1991. While so, it was alleged by the plaintiff that another Will dated 02.09.1991, which was executed by the survivor Mrs. Mariammal by canceling the earlier Will dated 24.10.1982 and bequeathed the two items of property, which is mentioned in the earlier Will executed in favour of the legal heirs of one Mr. Ganesan, who is the 1st son and the other five daughters as if that the properties are the self acquired properties and based on the above said Will the plaintiff claims the share in the suit schedule property as 1/5th share and for separate possession.

6. The defendants 7 to 10 filed S.O.P. No.15/2001 for the grant of Succession Certificate in respect of the deposit in the name of Late Mrs. Mariammal, being the 1st respondent in the said S.O.P. The plaintiff / Siriyapushpam and the other defendants 1 to 6 were impleaded as party respondent in the said S.O.P. No. 15 of 2001. The respondents 2 to 8 were pleaded that they are entitled for Succession Certificate based on the subsequent Will dated 02.09.1991 executed by Mrs. Mariammal.

7. The above S.O.P.No.15 of 2001 and O.S.No.593 of 2010 and O.S.No.631 of 2010 were taken jointly and disposed of by the Principal Sub Court, Madurai, wherein the following issues have been raised:

1. Whether the petitioner in S.O.P.No.15 of 2001 are entitled to succession certificate based on the Will dated 24.10.1982…?

2. Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.631 of 2010 are entitled for 1/5th share in view of the Will dated 02.09.1991 … ?

3. Whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.593 of 2010 are entitled for permanent injunction for entitlement of the suit property exclusively by them … ?

4. What relief the plaintiffs are entitled in O.S.No.593 of 2010 and O.S.No.631 of 2010 … ?

8. The trial court after elaborate trial and careful consideration regarding facts and circumstances of the case and documentary evidence, issue the Succession Certificate for all the legal heirs of Rathinam and Mariammal based on the Will dated 24.10.1982 in which the deposit has not been mentioned and also there is no exclusi