S. Nagamuthu, J.

The defendant in O.S.No.18 of 2011 on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore is the appellant herein. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent filed the said suit for partition and for allotment of her half share in the suit properties. The trial Court by decree and judgment dated 21.01.2013 has decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this first appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:-

The suit properties were all owned by one Mrs. Kuttiyammal. Mrs. Kuttiyammal had a son by name Mr. Mariappan. The plaintiff and the defendant are the daughter and son of Mr. Mariappan. According to the plaintiff, Mrs. Kuttiyammal died intestate on 04.08.1978. On her demise, Mr. Marappan inherited the suit properties and he was enjoying the same along with the plaintiff and the defendant. Mr. Marappan died on 13.01.1992. On his demise, according to the plaintiff, she is entitled for half share in the suit properties as per the Hindu Succession Act. In this regard, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant on 17.12.2010 demanding partition and for separate allotment of her half share. The defendant sent a reply notice stating that Mrs. Kuttiyammal had executed a registered Will on 22.06.1977 bequeathing the suit properties in his favour. Thus, according to the defendant, the plaintiff had no share in the suit properties.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he reiterated his stand that it is true that Mrs. Kuttiyammal was the absolute owner of the suit properties. It was further contended that out of her own volition and while in sound state of mind, she executed a registered Will on 22.06.1977, by which, she had bequeathed the suit properties to the defendant. Thus, on the demise of Mrs. Kuttiyammal on 04.08.1978, the defendant has become the absolute owner of the suit properties and he alone is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus, according to the defendant, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as three issues which are as follows:-

"1. Whether Mrs. Kuttiyammal had executed the Will dated 22.06.1977, and if it is so, it is genuine ?

2. If the plaintiff is entitled to claim partition ?

3. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled for ?"

6. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, she was examined as P.W.1. On the side of the defendant, he was examined as D.W.1. One Mr.Gopal, the son of the one of the Attestors of the Will was examined as D.W.2, who has identified the signature of his father namely one of the Attestors in the Will. One Mrs. Parvathy was examined as D.W.3 who is the wife of the Scribe who scribed the Will. She has identified the signature of her husband. On the side of the plaintiff, as many as four documents were exhibited and on the side of the defendant, six documents were exhibited. Exs.X.1 to X.7 were marked as Courts documents.

7. Having considered all the above, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. That is how the appellant/defendant is before this Court with this first appeal.

8. In this first appeal, it is contended by the appellant that though, Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act is not applicable, so as to raise presumption of execution of the Will, the execution of the Will has been duly proved by the defendant by examining D.Ws.2 and 3. Thus, according to the appellant, requirements of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act have been satisfied and thus, the Will has been duly proved. It is further contended that the plaintiff had not disputed the Will either in the plaint or by way of filing a reply statement. It is also contended by the appellant that it is not as though the plaintiff was not aware of the existence of the Will befo