Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the courts below the present second appeal is filed. The parties are arrayed as per their ranking before the trial Court.

2. The brief facts leading to file this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

2.(a) A suit has been filed by the First Plaintiff for partition against his son Defendants 1 and purchaser of the suit property. It is the contention that property originally belong to one Palanisamy husband of the Plaintiff and father of the first defendant. The said Palanisamy died intestate in the year 1995. The first Plaintiff and first defendant became Class-I legal heirs entitled to equal share in the suit property. First Defendant taking advantage of the fact that the Plaintiff was not well and entered into an agreement with the Second Defendant on 07.03.2001. At the intervention of the Plaintiff and Panchayatdars, the above agreement was cancelled on 26.4.2001. In view of the family arrangement it was agreed to sell 23 cents in order to clear the debts of the family. When the matter stood thus, the First Defendant violating the right of the Plaintiff alienated the entire suit property in favour of 2nd Defendant to defraud the share of the Plaintiff. Hence the suit for partition. Pending suit she has executed a Will dated2.7.2003 in favour of the 2nd Plaintiff. On the strength of the above Will the second Plaintiff was brought on record.

2. (b) Defendant No.1 remained ex-parte. Second Defendant filed a statement to the effect that the First Plaintiff has relinquished her share in favour of the Second Plaintiff and his son. First defendant and son effected many alienation. The First Plaintiff has not challenged the alienation. Now, suit has been filed to non-suit the sale in his favour dated 26.12.2001. In addition it is the contention that the alleged Will of the First Plaintiff is not valid. She has not executed the Will while in sound state of mind. The Will has been prepared by the First Defendant with the assistance of relatives. The Will is fabricated one. The second Plaintiff is not in possession of the property. The Trial court framed necessary issues. On the side of the Plaintiff P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 were marked. On the side of the Defendants, Second Defendant was examined as D.W.1 along with one Saravanakumar was examined as D.W.2 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.2 were marked. The trial Court having found that the First Plaintiff had share in the suit property, however, disbelieved the Will propounded by the Second Plaintiff. The First Appellate Court has also ultimately dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same the present second appeal is filed.

3. The Appellant has raised the following substantial Questions of Law in the Second Appeal:

"(a) Whether the 2nd Plaintiff has proved the due execution and genuineness of the Will/Ex.A.9 particularly when the second defendant being a stranger is debarred from challenging the Will?

(b) Whether the principle of spes successionis would operate against the defendants 1 and 2 to claim absolute claim over the suit property dehors the existence of the Will Ex.P.9?

(c) Whether the Courts below have committed an error in giving findings regarding the sale deed dated 26.12.2001 notwithstanding the factum of family arrangement pleaded by the Plaintiffs especially when the sale deed dated 26.12.2001 had not been produced before the Court?"

4. The counsel appearing for the appellant submit that the First Plaintiff being the wife of Palanisamy inherited the property along with the First Defendant. She has equal share in the suit property. The First Plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. She has also executed Ex.A.9 Will bequeathing her share to her daughter in law. It is the contention of the learned counsel, the First Defendant is acting against the interest of the family and in the habit of selling the family properties which was objected by his mother. Thereby she has filed partition suit. The very conduct of