R. Mala, J.

The plaintiffs have has challenged the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.128 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court, Nagercoil, by reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.307 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil for the relief of declaration of title and for injunction.

2. The appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction stating that the property is self acquired property of one Sankarakumara Pillai. First defendant is the first wife of Sankarakumara Pillai and defendants 2 to 7 are his children born through his first wife. He also got married the first plaintiff on 07.03.1952. Out of their wedlock, the first plaintiff gave birth the second plaintiff and one daughter viz., Ushakumari. The said Ushakumari was given marriage. Sankarakumara Pillai was working as Sreekariem at Dewasom Board. He purchased the property in the year 1973 and he bequeathed the suit property on 02.09.1989 in favour of the plaintiffs. He died on 26.05.1991 and the Will came in to effect. While Sankarakumara Pillai was admitted in the hospital, he was forcibly taken by the relatives and if any document has been created, it would be only by force. The plaintiffs are in exclusive possession. Hence, their sought for the relief stated supra.

3. The defendants raised a plea stating that even though Sankarakumara Pillai executed the Will, that has been cancelled as per cancellation of Will dated 14.05.1991 and hence, the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the property and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court, after considering the averments in the plaint and written statement, framed necessary issues and after considering the oral and document evidence, decreed the suit stating that the cancellation of the Will has not been proved in accordance with law.

5. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 128 of 2001. The first appellate Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has come to a conclusion that the cancellation of Will has been proved in accordance with law and held that the properties are the absolute properties of the deceased Sankarakumara Pillai and he executed the Will, which was cancelled in accordance with law and hence, the plaintiffs/appellants are not entitled for any declaration of title and consequential injunction. Against the said judgment and decree, the present second appeal has been filed.

6. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration of the second appeal:

(a)Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that Ex.B4 was proved beyond suspicion without reversing the findings of the trial Court in that regard?

(b)Whether the lower appellate Court is right in coming to the conclusion that the defendants have proved the execution of Ex.B4 as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act?

(c)Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the defendants have discharged their onus in proving the execution of Ex.B4?

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

Substantial Questions of Law a to c:

8. The appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction on the basis of Will dated 02.09.1989 i.e. Ex.A2. But, the respondents raised a plea that Ex.A2 Will has been cancelled as per Ex.B4 on 14.05.1991. But, the trial Court has disbelieved Ex.B4 cancellation of Will dated 14.05.1991 and decreed the suit. The first appellate Court has come to a conclusion that the cancellation of Will has been proved in accordance with law and dismissed the suit.

9. Now, the point to be decided in this second appeal is as to whether the respondents have proved the cancellation of Will dated 14.05.1991 in accordance with law.

10. The l