1. The judgment and decree dated 05.09.2003 and made in the appeal in A.S. No. 17 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC.2), Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2002 and made in the suit in O.S. No. 73 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore are under challenge in this memorandum of Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiff, who has lost his case before the Courts below, stands before this Court with this Second Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the appellant may herein after be referred to as the plaintiff and the respondents be referred to as the defendants where ever the context so require.

4. Heard Mr. M. Gopal, who is party-in-person and Mr. K. Manikandan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3.

5. The plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S. No. 73 of 1997 as against the defendants seeking the relief of declaration of his title over "A" schedule property as well as the consequential relief of permanent injunction. Alternatively, he had also sought the relief of preliminary decree for partition in respect of his ½ share over the suit "B" schedule property.

6. As per the case of the plaintiff, the suit "B" schedule property is a house bearing Door No. 2, Appavu Padayachi Street, Cuddalore. The suit "A" schedule property is a portion of "B" schedule property.

7. The fourth defendant M. Amirdhammal (since deceased) is the wife of one P. Munusami Nattar. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 5 are their son and daughter. The defendants 2 and 3 are the children of the first defendant. The plaint "A" and "B" schedule properties are the self acquired properties of P. Munusamy Nattar, under a registered Sale Deed dated 27.11.1948. Originally, P. Munusamy Nattar had executed a registered Will dated 27.02.1993, bequeathing the schedule mentioned property in favour of the plaintiff and the first defendant. Thereafter, he had passed away on 24.10.1996. As per the recitals of the Will, the plaint "A" schedule property therein was alloted to the plaintiff, which is described in plaint "A" schedule. The said Will was executed and registered by their father P. Munusamy Nattar, when he was in sound and disposing state of mind. According to the plaintiff, the said Will dated 27.02.1993, was his last Will and hence the plaintiff is entitled to "A" schedule property.

8. After the death of P. Munusamy Nattar, the first defendant had propounded a Will dated 11.05.1993, which is said to have been executed by their father P. Munusamy Nattar, bequeathing his entire property in favour of the defendants 2 and 3, who are the minor children of the first defendant, appointing the first defendant as their guardian. The said Will, according to the plaintiff, is not a true and valid document and equally in any event it could not have been executed by their father. The said Will might have been concocted by the first defendant with the forged signature of their father P. Munusamy Nattar.

9. Since, the first defendant had propounded the above said Will dated 11.05.1993, a village Panchayat was convened on 24.10.1996, wherein, the first defendant had accepted that the Will dated 11.05.1993, was not a true and valid document and he had also given an undertaking to divide and allot ½ share to the plaintiff in "B" schedule property. However, the first defendant had not complied with the said undertaking and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit.

10. The defendants 1 to 3, alone had contested the suit. The defendants 4 and 5 were dead. The defendants 6 to 11, remained ex-parte. According to the contesting defendants 1 to 3, the suit property is the absolute property of the defendants 2 and 3, as per the Will dated 11.05.1993, executed in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 by P. Munusamy Nattar.

11. P. Munusamy Nattar, had originally executed a Will on 26.09.1991 and thereafter, he had executed an another Will on 27.02.1993, ca