JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per ranking before the lower Court.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title to the suit property and for Permanent Injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 herein.

4. The appellant is permitted to represent herself as the Power Agent-Ramadoss in the year 2017. The first respondent-Chinnasamy Udayar, President of Banghava Kula Sangam has died. The name of R. Athimulam has to be recorded in the place of Chinnasamy Udayar as the President of Banghava Kula Sangam. Memo filed and the same is recorded.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is originally belonged to one Manicka Udayar under Ex.A1 Sale Deed having purchased from Ariyalur Co-operative Building Society and he had raised funds by executing mortgage of the property under Ex.A7 and also made repayment as per Ex.A6. Subsequently, the said Manicka Udayar during his lifetime had executed Ex.A2 Will dated 17.03.1977 in favour of his sister's daughter Chellammal and the said Chellammal had executed Settlement Deed under Ex.A4 on 05.01.1980 under Ex.A4 and the defendants 1&2 are her cousins trying to interfere with the possession of the property and hence she filed a suit for the above relief arraying the third defendant in the individual capacity who is a local politician. Based upon the written statement filed by the third defendant, the third defendant has been made as a representing capacity on behalf of the "Banghava Kula Sangam".

6. In the written statement filed by the third defendant on behalf of the sangam, a specific plea was raised that the deceased Manicka Udayar was acting as a Manager of the sangam and the sangam had received so much of amount as donation and the property was purchased in the name of the sangam in the year 1951 and they were running an hostel for the students of their community and hence claimed the third defendant is the owner of the property.

7. During the time of trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1. Her husband was examined as P.W.1 and one of the sons of the attestor (deceased attestor of the Will was examined as P.W.2). P.W.3 to P.W.5 were also examined. P.W.4 has not come for the cross-examination and hence on an endorsement, his evidence was eschewed. Exs.A1 to A18 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked.

8. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiff and held that Ex.A2 Will executed by Manicka Udayar in favour of his sister is true, valid and genuine. So also the settlement Ex.A3 is also valid. Accordingly, held that the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration of title and based upon Exs.A9 to A18 also held that they are in possession of the suit property.

9. Aggrieved against the said decision, the defendant had filed A.S.No.77/2001 and the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit and hence the Second Appeal.

10. The above Second Appeal was admitted on the following Substantial Questions of Law:-

(i) Whether the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court which has omitted to consider the relevant evidence and has taken into consideration the evidence which are inadmissible in law to reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif is substantial in law?

(ii) Whether in law the respondent who has failed to establish his cases that the property belongs to Sangam can challenge the Will Ex.A1 especially when the respondent has no caveatable interest to challenge the Will?

11. Heard Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. T. Murugamanickam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

12. Perused the records.

13. Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel has made submissions in connection with the Substantial Questions of Law has framed above. Mr. T. Murugamanickam, learned Senior Counsel has made submiss