JUDGMENT :

Prayer : This Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 03.09.2014 passed in A.S.No.2 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Thanjavur reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 10.10.2003 passed in O.S.No. 32 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Kumbakonam.

The above second appeal was filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.2 of 2004 dated 03.09.2014 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Thanjavur reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in O.S.No.32 of 1999 dated 10.10.2003, on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Kumbakonam. The parties are referred in the same litigative status as in the trial Court.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that 'A' schedule property is an ancestral property of her father, Vaiyapuri and 'B' schedule property is the self acquired property. The plaintiff and the defendants are siblings. The plaintiff was married to one Veerasami with whom she had three children, viz., two sons and one daughter. Her husband deserted way back in the year 1977. From the date of desertion, she has been living in the care and custody of her father, who died leaving behind him surviving the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs. The plaintiff has demanded partition from the first defendant. However, the first defendant has claimed right to the entire suit properties on the basis of a Will, which he claimed was executed by the father. The said Will was not produced. According to the plaintiff, the Will is a concocted one fabricated by the defendants. Therefore, she would contend that she is entitled to a 1/6th share in plaint A schedule property and a 1/3rd share in the B schedule property. The plaint A schedule property is the residential building. In this, the plaintiff is residing in the front portion and the first defendant is in the rear portion. She further prayed that the suit be decreed as prayed of.

3. The first defendant had filed a written statement inter alia denying the various allegations contained in the plaint and contending that as regards 'A' schedule property, the plaintiff is not entitled to a share in view of the fetter placed by Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act. He would further contend that his father executed a Will on 15.08.1993, in which, the properties have been bequeathed in his favour. The first defendant would further contend that the execution of the Will was very well known to the plaintiff, despite which, she has filed the present suit.

4. The plaintiff had filed a reply statement refuting the contention in the written statement and reiterating on the fact that the Will is a fraudulent one and it was done in collusion with the second defendant. She would submit that she is in enjoyment and possession of the A schedule property and she is entitled to a share.

5. The learned Principal Sub Judge, Kumbakonam by his judgment and decree dated 10.10.2003, was pleased to dismiss the suit holding that the Will executed by the father was a valid Will and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the property. Further the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the 'A' schedule property and the same is for the dwelling house and the male members have not sought for a partition.

6. The said judgment and decree was taken in appeal in A.S.No.2 of 2004 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Thanjavur. The learned II Additional District Judge, Thanjavur reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by holding that the Will was not proved and that suspicious circumstances surrounded the execution of the Will. The learned Judge has relied upon the evidence of the expert and his report marked as Exs.C1 and C2 to hold that the Ex.B2, Will is a forged document, which did not contain the signature of the testator. The learned Judge has held that the