S.S. Sundar, J.

1. These two appeals have been preferred as against the judgment and decree, dated 20.11.2013 in O.S. No. 140 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.

2. The defendants 4 and 5 in the suit in O.S. No. 140 of 2010 have preferred A.S.(MD) No. 167 of 2013. Whereas the defendants 1 to 3 have filed the first appeal in A.S.(MD) No. 53 of 2014.

3. The first respondent in both the appeals is the plaintiff in the suit and the suit is for declaration of title in respect of plaint schedule items 1 to 4 and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 5 in the suit from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiff. Alternatively, the plaintiff/first respondent also prayed for partition of 1/2 share in all the suit properties, in case, the Will relied upon by the defendants 1 to 3 is proved.

4. The case of the plaintiff/first respondent as per the plaint are as follows:

4.1. The suit properties item 1 to 4 belong to the plaintiff's father one Periyasamy Pillai. Since Periyasamy Pillai and his wife one Maragathammal had no children, they adopted the plaintiff, as the plaintiff who is none else than the daughter of Maragathammal's sister. The plaint schedule properties items 1 to 3 are house properties and the fourth item is a nanja land. Periyasamy Pillai died on 18.05.1982. After the demise of Periyasamy Pillai, the properties were inherited by Maragathammal and the plaintiff. Maragathammal also died on 10.10.2017. After the death of Maragathammal, the plaintiff became the sole legal heir and inherited the entire suit properties. The plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the suit properties and that she is residing in plaint third item.

4.2. The plaintiff's title and enjoyment as the sole legal heir of Periyasamy Pillai and Maragathammal was also declared by the Civil Court by the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 85 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankovil. The defendants 1 to 3 who are only the brothers of Maragathammal, are falsely claiming that Maragathammal had executed a Will in respect of the suit properties and that they are the owners as per the Will. Since the defendants are causing disturbance to the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit properties raising a false claim under the alleged Will, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/2 share in all the suit properties even if the Will is proved to be true and genuine. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants 1 to 3 executed a sale deed in respect of items 1 to 3 in favour of defendants 4 and 5. The said Will is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

5. The suit was contested by defendants 1 to 3 namely the appellants in A.S.(MD) No. 53 of 2014 by filing a detailed written statement. The written statement filed by the defendants 1 to 3 is also adopted by the defendants 4 and 5 in the suit who are the appellants in A.S.(MD) No. 167 of 2013. The adoption pleaded by the plaintiff/first respondent was specifically denied. It is further contended by the defendants 1 to 3 that the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 85 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankovil is nothing but collusive and that the said judgment is not binding on the defendants. The defendants also admitted that the suit properties are owned by Periyasamy Pillai and his wife Maragathammal and that they were in joint enjoyment of the same. It is stated by the defendants that after the death of Periyasamy Pillai on 18.05.1982, his wife Maragathammal became the sole legal heir and that during the life time of Maragathammal, she executed a Will dated 19.12.2001 in favour of her brothers namely defendants 1 to 3. It is further stated that after the death of Maragathammal on 10.10.2007, the defendants 1 to 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also stated that the plaintiff filed a collusive suit against one Vijaya Lakshmi who is none else than her b