This appeal had been filed by the Plaintiff in OS.No.235 of 2004, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit by the I Additional District Judge (PCR) Trichy, by judgement dated 19.12.2006.

2. The above said suit had been filed, seeking partition and separate possession of 1/2 share in the B-schedule property and 1/3rd share in the A-schedule property and for due profits and for permanent injunction and for other reliefs and costs.

3. The Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant are sisters. The Defendants 2 to 4 are the tenants in the suit property. The Defendants 5 and 6 are nationalised Banks, namely, Canara Bank and Indian Bank, wherein it is stated that fixed deposits and other deposits are available, which are also the subject matter, seeking partition. It was stated that the A schedule property is a house property and there was also three shops. The house belonged to one Venkataraman Chettiar, the father of the Appellant, 1st Respondent and their another sister, Bagyalakshmi. and he died in 1951. He executed a Will dated 13.8.1951. According to the said Will, he gave life estate to his wife Navaneetham Ammal. Thereafter, the property was bequeathed to his three daughters, viz. the Plaintiff, V.Bethulakshmi, the 1st Defendant V.Vijayalakshmi, and the deceased V.Bagyalakshmi. Navaneetham Ammal died on 30.1.1999. Consequently, the three sisters, namely, the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant and V.Bagyalakshmi were each entitled to an undivided 1/3rd share in the suit property.

4. The Plaintiff had executed a release deed with respect to her 1/3rd share to the other sister Bagyalakshmi, after receiving consideration. Consequently, V.Bagyalakshmi became entitled to 2/3rd share and the 1st Defendant V.Vijayalakshmi became entitled to 1/3rd share. The said V.Bagyalakshmi is a divorcee. She died intestate on 10.11.2002. Consequently, it is claimed that her 2/3rd share should be divided equally between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant in their capacity as legal heirs. The B-schedule property are cash in bank deposits and jewels in bank lockers. The Plaintiff claimed one half share in the suit property. It has been further stated that the tenants, the Defendants 2 to 4 have been paying rents, which were being collected by the 1st Defendant and consequently, accounts were also sought in the plaint.

5. It had been further stated that Bagyalakshmi had sold her property at Annamalai Nagar, Trichy and had invested the said amount in the Defendants 5 and 6 Banks. The Plaintiff had also claimed a share in the said deposits. The Plaintiff had issued a notice to the Defendants dated 28.2.2003. The 1st Defendant had sent a reply dated 19.3.2002, wherein she claimed that a Will dated 3.10.2002 had been executed by the sister V. Bagyalakshmi. The Plaintiff claimed that the Will was executed when V. Bagyalakshmi was not in a sound and disposing state of mind. She had challenged the truth, validity, execution, attestation and registration of the Will. She further stated that a Will could not have been executed since Bagyalakshmi was a chronic cancer patient and her physical and mental health was in a bad condition. She was suffering from advance stage throat cancer. She was not able to speak. She was fed only fluid items. She was treated in the Viswanathan Hospital, Trichy. He was then admitted to Chitrambalam Amsavalli Muthiyoor Illam at Trichy, where she died. It had, therefore, been stated that the Will could not have been executed by the said Bagyalakshmi. It had been further stated that Bagyalakshmi had bequeathed her 2/3rd share to N. Kalpana, the daughter of the 1st Defendant. Subsequently, the said N. Kalpana had settled the suit property by settlement deed dated 10.12.2002 to the 1st Defendant. It had been stated that all the documents are concocted and forged. In the said circumstances, the suit for partition was filed as stated above.

6. The 1st Defendant had filed a written statement, stating that her father Venkataraman Chettiar died on 23