JUDGMENT :

M.M. Sundresh, J.

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal is filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018 made in T.O.S.No.73 of 2013 (O.P.No.761 of 2004).)

1. The appellants are defendants 2 and 3 in Testamentary Original Suit No.73 of 2018 converted accordingly in view of the caveat filed by the deceased first defendant being the husband and the father of the appellants. As the suit having been decreed upholding the validity of Ex.P1 being the last Will and testament of the father-in-law of the second defendant dated 20.05.1983, the present Original Side Appeal has been filed before us.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank in T.O.S.No.73 of 2018.

3. Brief Facts:-

3.1. Late Sri S.Moturi Satyanarayana was a Member of the Parliament, apart from being a Member of the Legislative Assembly, who drafted the constitution. He was also the Chairman of the Dalmia Cements apart from being instrumental in the establishment of Hindi Prachar Sabha at Chennai. He had four sons and three daughters. He died on 06.03.1995. His wife Surya Kantha Devi pre-deceased him on 04.06.1988. He left behind a registered Will under Ex.P1 dated 20.05.1983. The Will was kept in a sealed cover. As per the said document, the petitioner in O.P.No.761 of 2004 arrayed as the respondent in this appeal and the plaintiff in T.O.S.No.73 of 2013 has been declared as the Propounder. This respondent is the third son of the testator. Ex.P1 has been attested by P.Ws.2 and 3.

3.2. In the year 1995, the plaintiff went to the office of the Sub Registrar and after following the procedure, read the Will pursuant to the application dated 17.07.1995. Thereafter, O.P.No.761 of 2004 was filed on 20.10.1997.

3.3. Under Ex.P1, the plaintiff has been given the ground floor. The second defendant viz., the second son of the testator has been given second and third floors. Incidentally, the plaintiff has been given the site behind the house. The other property, being a land, has been given in favour of his grandchildren including the third defendant. This property consists of four acres and has been divided into 1 acre, 1.5 acre and 1.5 acre respectively. Accordingly, one acre has to be given to the third defendant being the granddaughter of the testator. Ex.P1 reveals the fact that the properties are self-acquired properties of the deceased and a mention has been made about the children and wife. Movables have been given in favour of the wife and the absolute right of the testator to change the Will has been retained.

3.4. Ex.P2 is the sealed cover of the Will. In the sealed cover, the testator has put his signature. It was also signed by two witnesses including the plaintiff. After the death of the deceased, it was forwarded to the Registrar, Original Side, High Court, by Registrar, Joint-I, South Madras, by letter dated 09.02.2004. Earlier, it was opened by the Registrar, Madras South in the presence of P.W.3 and one of the sisters of the plaintiff, who is obviously the daughter of the testator. It was subsequently copied and filed in Book No.3 on 19.07.1995. The endorsement so made was also found in Ex.P1.

3.5. In view of the objection raised by the first defendant, who is incidentally the elder brother of the plaintiff, O.P.No.761 of 2004 was duly converted into a suit in T.O.S.No.73 of 2013. Thereafter he died. The appellants were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3. They filed written statement on 01.10.2015 raising a plea that Ex.P1 was not true and genuine and no Will at all has been left by the testator. In the objection filed by the deceased first defendant also, same contention has been raised that no Will has been executed. However, a plea has been taken that subsequently the deceased father had executed another unregistered Will dated 04.03.1995, though the evidence of the defendants 2 and 3 is to the effect that it was executed on 04.06.1995 whe