The validity and genuineness of the Will dated 02.02.1974 governed the succession to the property, and the failure to prove subsequent Wills in accordance with the law led to the plaintiff's entitlement to a 1/3rd share in the suit properties.

1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the following reliefs:-

(i) To divide the immovable properties morefully set out in schedules 'A' and 'B' by metes and bounds by allotting to the plaintiff his 50% share.

(ii) To divide the movable properties morefully set out in schedule 'C' and 'D' and allot 50% share of the same to the plaintiff and

(iii) Directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties belonged to late Mrs.Elie John, wife of V.K.John. The said Mrs. Elie John died on 01.03.1984 leaving behind her K.John(died), Leelie Seetharaman (2nd defendant) and Appu John(1st defendant).

3. The plaintiff is the son of K.John, who had died on 20.12.1985 leaving behind the plaintiff and sole legal heir entitled to succeed to the estate, namely 1/3rd share. The plaintiff's grand-mother had executed a Will on 02.02.1974 bequeathing the suit properties to the plaintiff, his paternal uncle Appu John and his aunt Leelie Seetharaman to be taken by them in equal shares. The said Appu John died intestate unmarried, the daughter Leelie Seetharaman died as a Hindu.

4. The plaintiff further claimed that Leelie Seetharaman died on 24.04.2001 pending the suit. According to him, she died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and the first defendant as her legal heirs. Application was filed by the plaintiff to record the legal heirs of the deceased second defendant, who were already parties to the suit namely, the plaintiff and the first defendant. The said application was ordered.

5. It is also seen from the records that Appu John, the first defendant died pending suit. The plaintiff would claim that he died intestate. Therefore, the plaint as its stands today, seeks partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's half share in the suit properties. The sum and substance of the plaintiff's allegations is that property belonged to the plaintiff's paternal grand-mother and as per the Will dated 02.02.1974, executed by her, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit properties. The second defendant in the suit, daughter of V.K.John died pending suit on 24.04.2001 and she had converted to Hinduism, at the time of her marriage with one W.S.Seetharam. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act would apply and the properties of a female Hindu inherited from her father or mother, who dies without children, will revert back to the heirs of father or mother. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, he is entitled to = share in the suit properties along with the first defendant.

6. The suit is resisted by in the first defendant contending that the plaintiff's grand-mother bequethed the schedule properties in favour of the second defendant under a Will dated 10.02.1984. It is also claimed by him that he was appointed as an executor of the Will. The first defendant further contended that on the death of Ellie John on 1.3.1984, the second defendant has become the absolute owner of the properties

7. The second defendant had filed separate written statement wherein it is claimed that the plaintiff's father was not in joint possession of the suit properties. It is stated that he left the family 44 years ago. It is also contended that in view of the Will dated 10.02.1984 left her by her mother, she has become the absolute owner of the suit property. It is also pleaded hat she had filed an application for grant of probate of the said Will and same is pending. On the above averments defendants 1 and 2 sought for dismissal of the suit.

8. The third defendant was impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased Leelie Seetharaman. He filed the written statement contending that his wife namely, the second defendant had executed a will on 02.01.2001 prior to her death in favour of the third defendant. It is also claimed that the first defendant has fabricated the Will dated 01.01.1998 using the forged signature of the second defendant. It is claimed by the third defendant that he has initiated proceed