The execution of a Will can be proved in accordance with Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the presence of suspicious circumstances must be analyzed in light of the reasons assigned in the Will.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.59 of 2014 dated 07.09.2015, on the file of I Additional District Court, Erode reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.173 of 2010 dated 20.01.2014, on the file of II Additional Sub Court, Erode.)

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to her father Pongianna Gounder and the 1st defendant who is the brother of the plaintiff. The property in question was an ancestral property. The father of the plaintiff died on 31.3.2004 and the mother of the plaintiff died on 1.8.2007. They died leaving behind the plaintiff and the 1st defendant who are sister and brother. The 2nd and 3rd defendants are the sons of the 1st defendant.

3. The further case of the plaintiff is that her father executed a registered Will on 2.9.1991, marked as Ex.A4. As per this Will, the father bequeathed his half share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and life interest was given in favour of his wife. After the demise of her father and mother, the plaintiff was claiming for half share in the suit property under the Will. The grievance of the plaintiff was that her brother was not coming forward to partition the suit properties through metes and bounds. Hence, left with no other alternative, the suit was filed seeking for allotment of half share in the suit properties, in favour of the plaintiff.

4. The defendants filed a written statement and took a stand that the above said Pongianna Gounder cancelled the earlier Will executed by him on 2.9.1991and executed a fresh Will in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants on 25.1.1999, marked as Ex.B1. The further case of the defendant is that on the death of Pongianna Gounder, the life interest went in favour of his wife and after her demise in the year 2007, the 2nd and 3rd defendants became the absolute owners of the half share bequeathed in their favour by their grandfather. Accordingly, the defendants together were claiming ownership over all the suit properties and they denied any share in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly they sought for the dismissal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit as prayed for and a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff through Judgment and Decree dated 20.1.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S. No. 59 of 2014. The Lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after considering the findings of the Trial Court, was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court through Judgment and Decree dated 7.9.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the above Second Appeal.

6. The Second Appeal was admitted and the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:

a) Whether the lower Appellate Court went wrong in finding that the Will dated 25.01.1999 marked as Ex.B1 was proved by relying upon the evidence of DW2 to DW5 and whether such finding goes contrary to the requirements of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act?

b) Whether the lower Appellate Court went wrong in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial court by assigning reasons which can be held to be perverse due to improper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record?

7. Heard Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. This Court carefully considered the materials available on record and the findings of both the Courts below.

8. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the properties are ancestral in nature and there is also no dispute with respect to the relationship between the parties. The crux of the dispute revolves aro