JUDGMENT :

S.S. Sundar, J.

1. The plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. No. 141 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin, are the appellants in this second appeal.

2. The appellants filed the suit in O.S. No. 141 of 2006 before the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin for partition of their 1/6 share.

3. The brief facts, that are set out in the plaint, are as follows:

3.1. The suit properties belonged to one P.S.P.K. Jeyaraj Pandian, father of plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3. The first defendant, namely, Rajathiammal, is the mother of plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiffs' father died intestate, all of a sudden, due to illness on 26.06.2005 as a Hindu, though he was hale and healthy earlier. He never executed any Will. After the death of the father of the plaintiffs, the suit properties were jointly enjoyed by the plaintiffs and the defendants.

3.2. Though the first defendant agreed to divide the property and to allot the plaintiffs' share, at the instance of defendants 2 and 3, the first defendant is delaying. When demanded by the plaintiffs during February'2006, the defendants 2 and 3 refused to divide the property, but compelled the plaintiffs to execute a release deed, after receiving some amount. Hence, the plaintiffs issued a notice on 03.08.2006. The defendants have sent a reply containing false particulars. In the reply, they have also come forward with a case that the father of the plaintiffs executed a Will on 31.03.2004 bequeathing all the suit properties in favour of the defendants 2 and 3. The Will alleged to have been executed by the plaintiffs' father is a concocted document forged for the purpose of defeating the plaintiffs' right and share. When the father of the plaintiffs was sick, he wanted to give all the suit properties only to the plaintiffs, as he has already sold several other properties belonged to him for the benefit of defendants 2 and 3 and for their business.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written statement. It is stated that the plaintiffs were given in marriage by spending huge amount and they were separated from the family. Though it is admitted that the suit properties are the properties of father of plaintiffs, it is contended by the defendants that the suit properties were given to defendants 2 and 3 under a Will dated 31.03.2004. It is the case of the defendants that the Will came into effect upon the death of father and it was acted upon. It is also stated that the defendants have divided the suit properties by a partition deed. It is further stated that the plaintiffs have not objected to the Will at the time, when the defendants 2 and 3 applied for change of Patta on the basis of the Will. It is also contended that the suit has also been instigated, since the defendants 2 and 3 refused to mobilize funds to help the second plaintiff to conduct her son's marriage.

5. The plaintiffs examined the second plaintiff as PW-1 and marked Ex-A1 to Ex-A8 before the trial Court. The defendants apart from examining themselves as DW-1 and DW-2, examined two other witnesses, namely, DW-3 and DW-4 and marked Ex-B1 to Ex-B33.

6. The trial Court, after comparing the signature in Ex-B3 with the signatures found in Ex-A6 and Ex-A8, came to the conclusion that the Will is not a genuine document and that it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The trial Court also found that the Will is not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Since the plaintiffs are admittedly the legal heirs of the deceased P.S.P.K. Jeyaraj Pandian and Rajathiammal, and Rajathiammal, mother of plaintiffs died during the pendency of the suit, the trial Court granted a decree for partition in respect of plaintiffs' 3/5 share. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S. No. 141 of 2006, the defendants 2 and 3 preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 11 of 2012, before the Principal District Court, Tuticorin.

7. The appellate Cou