G. Jayachandran, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. The trial court accepted the testamentary dispossession of the suit property against the plea of intestate. Hence, this appeal.

2. Pattu, the plaintiff/appellant in her plaint contented that, her father S.R. Chinnia Gowder died intestate on 11.01.1992 in the hospital after brief illness. She is the daughter of his first wife Rajammal. The first defendant Krishnammal @ Singari is his second wife. The second defendant is the daughter of the first defendant. The third to fifth defendants are her sons. The properties described in the suit schedule are the absolute properties of her father. She is entitled for ? share in 'A' schedule property. The 'B' schedule property is the common property of her father S.R. Chinnia Gowder and his brother S.R. Ramasamy Gowder, who died issueless and intestate. The 6th defendant is the wife of S.R. Ramasamy Gowder. So, in B schedule property, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/12 share. Pending suit, the 2nd defendant Kanaka died. So, her husband was brought on record as her legal representative and arrayed as 7th defendant. The 6th defendant Tmt. Saraswathi ammal, W/o S.R. Ramasamy Gowder died issueless. The defendants 3 to 5 are her legal representatives.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that, though her father married the first defendant as his junior wife and living with her and her children born through her, her father was fond of her and was in contact with her till 1986. Off late, the defendants 2 to 5 successfully prevented her father from having contact with her and she was not even informed by the defendants about her father's demise when she come to know about the death of her father, she caused notice on 25.01.1992 to the defendants requesting them not to alienate the property till her share is apportioned. The defendants 3 to 5 replied denying share to her in the property and contented that her father S.R. Chinnia Gowder has bequeathed all his properties to them through a Will dated 3.01.1992, a day before he was taken to hospital.

4. According to the plaintiff, she learnt that her father S.R. Chinnia Gowder was afflicted with continuous diarrhoea, vomiting and giddiness for about two to three days prior to 04.01.1992. On 04.01.1992 along with the above symptoms he had chest pain and was admitted in the hospital and he became unconscious. Despite medical attendance, he died on 11.01.1992 due to cardiac arrest. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that her father executed a Will, when he was in sound disposing state of mind is false and untenable. After exchange of notices, negotiations with the help of mediators was held to divide the estate of S.R. Chinnia Gowder amicably, but it ended in futile.

5. The defendants 1 and 2, who are the junior wife and daughter of the late S.R. Chinnia Gowder filed written statement admitting the relationship but, denying the other averments such as the plaintiff's claim of cordial relationship with her father S.R. Chinnia Gowder. According to these defendants, the plaintiff and her husband were throughout hostile towards late S.R. Chinnia Gowder, despite his best efforts to have cordial relationship. The relationship severed twenty years before the death of S.R. Chinnia Gowder. The allegations made about S.R. Chinnia Gowder health are denied. His faculties were intact and he was conscious of what he was doing. In a sound disposing state of mind, he executed a Will on 03.01.1992 bequeathing his properties in favour of his sons absolutely. Even they were not given any property in the Will, except obligation of maintaining the first defendant by her sons who are legatees under the Will. The defendants 1 and 2 are not necessary parties to the suit. The mediation talk averred in the plaint is denied. The plaintiff was never in joint possession of the property, so the valuation of the properties and the court fees paid thereon are totally incorrect.

6. The defendants 3 to 5, filed