G. Jayachandran, J.

This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.171 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Judge [Fast Track Court No. II], Coimbatore dated 28.09.2010. The appellant is the 3rd defendant, who lost the suit to the plaintiff laid for declaration, delivery of possession and past and future mesne profits in respect of the suit schedule property.

2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:

The plaintiff namely, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi has laid the suit based on the Will executed by one S.Palanisamy Naidu in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff-temple. The subject Will dated 07.03.2005 is a registered Will in respect of the self-acquired property of late Palanisamy Naidu.

3. As per the plaint, the suit property, which was purchased by one Palanisamy Naidu on 03.04.1972, was in his possession and enjoyment till his death. Few months before his death, he renovated the property and reconstructed a new structure. Being his self-acquired property, he had bequeathed it to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi. His wife and son were living separately and their relationship with Palanisamy Naidu was not cordial. His attempt to re-unite with his wife and son did not materialise hence, he decided to bequeath the property to Lord Venkateswara of whom he was devoted throughout his life. He wrote a letter dated 01.02.2005 to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi expressing his intention to bequeath the property and sought advise. The plaintiff on receipt of his letter, replied stating that after execution and registration of the Will, the Will may be sent to his office for taking necessary action. Accordingly, Palanisamy Naidu had executed Will on 07.03.2005. After his demise, his nephew Nandakumar informed to the plaintiff about Palanisamy Naidu will and his demise through the Will, the plaintiff has secured the property. The defendants 1 and 2 had no right to deal with the property, but had entered into transaction with 3rd defendant to defeat the right of the legatee secured the Will. Hence, the suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits.

4. While so, defendants 1 and 2, who are the wife and son of late Palanisamy Naidu respectively denying due execution of the Will had contested the suit along with the 3rd defendant (subsequent purchaser) on the ground that defendants 1 and 2 along with the deceased Palanisamy Naidu entered into an agreement on 24.01.2005 with the 3rd defendant in respect of the suit schedule property.

5. After the demise of Palanisamy Naidu on 07.03.2005, the legal heirs of Palanisamy sold the property to the 3rd defendant on 16.09.2009 and delivered the possession to him. The sale agreement in favour of the 3rd defendant was entered on 24.01.2005 and a part consideration was received on two occasions i.e. on 24.01.2005 and 23.02.2005 by the deceased Palanisamy Naidu. The 1st and 2nd defendants had completed the sale agreement by receiving balance sale consideration and executed the sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant on 16.09.2005. The Will perpetrated to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff temple bristles with suspicious and it was not executed voluntarily by late Palanisamy Naidu. It is the handi-work of one Devaraj and Mr.Nanthakumar, who are inimical for defendants 1 and 2. The suit for injunction filed by the said Devaraj and Nandakumar against defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.45 of 2006 before the Subordinate Judge of Ooty was dismissed for default and subsequent suit in O.S.No.75 of 2006 is pending. To deprive the 1st and 2nd defendants the lawful right over the suit property, they have engineered the suit based on the Will.

6. Palanisamy Naidu died on 07.03.2005 the date on which the alleged Will got executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff temple. There is no reason to deprive defendants 1 and 2 of their rights over the suit schedule property through the alleged Will. Th