M.M. Sundresh, J.

The plaintiff, who lost before both the Courts belowin a suit for partition, is the appellant herein.

2. The brief facts are that the suit property to the extent 1710 sq.ft. was originally purchased by Nallakumara Gounder. He had one son by name Karumana Gounder. His wife purchased another extent of 462 sq.ft. on 15.09.1930. Nallakumara Gounder died and Karumana Gounder died on 24.04.1968 and his wife Nallammal died in the year 1987 respectively. Thus the suit property is the total extent of 2172 sq.ft., over which, a residential house stands as of now. Karrmana Gounder had two children by name Ramasamy and Ponnammal. Ramasamy died on 24.09.1996 leaving behind his wife Saraswathi - third defendant and a daughter and son R. Veeralakshmi and R. Nallakumar/defendants 4 and 5. His another son died in 2002 as unmarried. The plaintiff is the son of Ponnammal, who died in the year 1952. Defendants 1 and 2 are the other daughter and son of Ponnammal. Defendants 6 to 8 are also the legal heirs through Ponnammal.

3. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff on two grounds. According to the plaintiff, the deceased Ramasamy had first wife by name Sorna @ Sornathal (since deceased). From her, he has purchased an extent of 271½ sq.ft. in the suit property. The remaining share is claimed by the plaintiff, being the legal heir of Ponnammal. Secondly, the claim has been made based upon the Will alleged to have been executed by the deceased Karrmana Gounder in his favour. This is an unregistered Will. There is no other witness who speaks about the Will except one, who though put himself for chief examination, did not turn up for cross-examination and therefore, even that was eschewed by the trial Court. From the pleadings, it is seen that the plaintiff has claimed the suit property as the one purchased by Nallakumara Gounder from the joint family income in the name of the deceased Nallammal. After the second purchase in the name of the deceased Nallammal, both the properties have been clubbed and jointly enjoyed.

4. It is the case of the contesting defendants that the suit property absolutely belongs to them. They have also questioned the genuineness of Ex.A3 the Will allegedly executed by Karumana Gounder. Reliance has been made on Ex.B1, which is a letter sent by the appellant/plaintiff to the Erode Municipality, acknowledging the title in favour of the defendants and thus expressing no objection for changes in the official records.

5. The trial Court dismissed the suit after holding that Sorna @ Sornathal was the first wife of the deceased Ramasamy and thus, the alienation made by her is valid. The appellant filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court. A cross objection was also filed by the contesting defendants against the finding qua the status and alienation of Sorna @ Sornathal. The lower appellate Court, though dismissed the suit, reversed the finding rendered by the trial Court with respect to the status of Sorna @ Sornathal and the consequential alienation made by her. Thus it was held that the factum of marriage between Sorna @ Sornathal and Ramasamy has not been proved. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has come forward to file these appeals.

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

S.A.No.762 of 2015:

a. Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that Sornathal is not the wife of the deceased Ramasamy merely because her name was not found in the legal heirship certificate obtained by the second wife?

b. Whether the legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar is the conclusive proof of marriage to succeed the estate of the deceased?

S.A. No. 763 of 2015:

1. Whether the legal heirs of the mother of the plaintiff/appellant namely Ponnammal is entitled to ½ share in the suit property, which originally belong to her grandparents namely Karumana Gounder (1710 sq.ft), who died on 24.04.1968 and Nallammal (462 Sq.ft), who died in the year 1987 respecti