Challenge in this Original Side Appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 20-12-2007 passed in T.O.S.No.23 of 2002 by the learned Single Judge of this court.

2. The respondents herein as petitioners have filed O.P.No.52 of 2002 under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act XXXIX of 1925 and subsequently, the same has been converted into T.O.S.No.23 of 2002 wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole defendant.

3. The material averments made in the plaint can be summarized as follows:

The plaintiffs and defendant are the sons and daughter of one Govindan and he voluntarily executed a Will, dated 06-07-1990 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of immoveable property mentioned therein. The said Govindan has passed away on 03-02-1993. After his demise, the Will, dated 06-07-1990 has come into effect. The deceased has not executed any Will in favour of anybody except the Will dated 06-07-1990. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted praying to grant the relief sought therein.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendant it is averred as follows:

The defendant has denied the various allegations mentioned in the plaint except the relationship mentioned therein. It is false to aver that the father of the plaintiffs and defendant has executed a Will dated 06-07-1990. The same has been created and forged by the plaintiffs, so as to defeat the right of the defendant in respect of her one-third share in the property mentioned in the plaint. The father of the plaintiffs and defendant died intestate. After the demise of the father of the plaintiffs and defendant, the defendant asked the plaintiffs to give her share and in order to defeat her rights, the Will, in question has been forged by the plaintiffs. The said Will has not been executed in a free state of mind of the deceased. The deceased has never mentioned the Will alleged to have been executed by him. There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the learned Single Judge has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence has decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been preferred at the instance of the defendant, as appellant.

6. The crux of the case of the plaintiffs is that the property mentioned in the plaint is the absolute property of the father of the plaintiffs and defendant, by name Govindan and he voluntarily executed the Will dated 06-07-1990 in favour of the plaintiffs and he passed away on 03-02-1993 and thereafter, the Will dated 06-07-1990 has come into effect. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the relief sought therein.

7. The main defence put forth on the side of the defendant is that the deceased Govindan has not executed any Will and passed away, intestate. During his lifetime, he has not stated anything about the Will and the same has been created by the plaintiffs, so as to deny her rights to an extent of one-third share in the property mentioned in the plaint and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the reliefs sought in the plaint.

8. As adverted to earlier, the learned Single Judge after considering the rival evidence available on record has decreed the suit as prayed for.

9. The main point that has to be decided in the present Original Side Appeal is as to whether the deceased viz., Govindan has executed the Will, dated 06-07-1990 in favour of the plaintiffs?

10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has strenuously contended that the Will, dated 06-07-1990 has been marked as Ex-P1 and for the purpose of proving its execution as well as attestation on the side of the plaintiffs, the second plaintiff by name, G. Subramani has been examined as P.W.1 and since both the attestors have passed away, the son of one of the atte