Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s T.Susindran
For the Respondent: Mr. N.L. Rajah, Senior Counsel for M/s. B.Harikrishnan

Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

• The suit was filed for partition of property, which was dismissed by the trial court based on the validity of a will and implied consent of the legal heirs (!) (!) .
• The deceased, Abdul Razack Maricar, had multiple wives and children, with properties inherited under Muslim Law. The widow was entitled to a specific share, and the remaining estate was to be divided among the residuary heirs (!) (!) .
• The defendant (first defendant) claimed that Abdul Razack Maricar executed a valid will bequeathing all properties to her, and that she has been in possession and enjoyment of these properties since his death (!) (!) .
• The plaintiff challenged the validity of the will, asserting that under Muslim Law, a testator cannot bequeath more than one-third of his estate without the consent of all heirs, and that the will exceeded this limit. They also argued that the alleged consent of the heirs was not proved and that the will was executed without proper legal consent (!) (!) (!) .
• The trial court found that the will was valid based on implied consent and the inaction of other heirs over a long period, dismissing the suit for partition (!) .
• The appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that consent to a bequest, especially to an heir, must be clear and unequivocal, and that silence or inaction cannot be deemed as consent. It highlighted that proof of actual or implied consent is necessary, and such consent must be established through evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The court noted that the evidence did not substantiate that all legal heirs had given consent to the will, and that the delay in filing the suit did not imply consent. Therefore, the will's validity was questionable, and the suit for partition should be allowed (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Ultimately, the appellate court held that the first plaintiff was entitled to a specific share in the property and passed a preliminary decree accordingly. Since only the first plaintiff appealed, the decree was limited to her (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

These points summarize the core legal findings and reasoning in the case, focusing on the importance of clear proof of consent for wills and the rights of heirs under Muslim Law.