The main legal point established in the judgment is the irrevocability of a mutual Will and its impact on property rights.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2020 passed in A.S. No.4 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2018 passed in O.S. No.96 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.)

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No.96 of 2008 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai, is the appellant in the above second appeal. The appellant filed the suit in O.S. No.96 of 2008 for specific performance of an agreement of sale stated to have been executed on 02.05.2008 and to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to executed the sale deed relating to the suit mentioned property in favour of plaintiff upon receipt of for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards balance consideration and for other consequential reliefs. 2. The suit property is described as an extent of 1.00 acre out of total extent of 1.62.0 hectare in Survey No.56/182 in Kosalai Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

3. The case of the appellant in the plaint that the suit property and other properties were originally belonged to one Thangavel Udaiyar who is father of defendants 1 and 2 and grandfather of defendants 3 and 4, and his close friend one Angappan @ Govindasamy by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 10.02.1947. It is further stated that they jointly enjoyed the suit property and other properties as co-owners. It is contended by the appellant that Thangavel Udaiyar purchased other half share of Angappan in the name of his wife for a sum of Rs.500/- and that Thangavel Udaiyar became the absolute owner of the property. It is admitted that Thangavel Udaiyar was enjoying the suit properties as absolute owner and developed the suit property along with his other lands as house plots. It is stated that the contention of defendants 3 and 4 that the said Thangavel Udaiyar and his wife Rajambal executed a mutual Will dated 17.08.1988 in favour of defendants 3 and 4 is specifically denied. The appellant questioned the genuineness of the Will stated to have been executed on 17.08.1988 by Thangavel Udaiyar and his wife Rajambal. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that after the execution of Will, he purchased three house plots from Thangavel Udaiyar on 02.05.2008 for a consideration of Rs.1,86,300/- and that on 02.05.2008, Thangavel Udaiyar he agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. At the time of execution of sale agreement, it is contended that the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance and that it was agreed that the balance of Rs.2,00,000/- should be paid before 01.08.2008. It is further stated that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It is admitted that Thangavel Udaiyar died on 30.06.2008 in his own home under suspicious circumstances and that defendants 3 and 4 have created a Will without the signature of Thiru. Thangavel Udaiyar.

4. The suit was contested by the third defendant mainly on the ground that the Will executed by Thangavel Udaiyar and his wife is a mutual and irrevocable Will. After framing necessary issues, the trial Court partly decreed the suit by directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest @ 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S. No.4 of 2019 before Principal District Court, Tiruvannamalai. The lower appellate Court, after holding that Thangavel Udaiyar has no right to enter into sale agreement with plaintiff by revoking the mutual Will, confirmed the findings of the trial Court.

5. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the above second appeal is preferred by the appellant by raising the following substantial questions of law in the memorandum of grounds of appeal:

“i) Whether Thangavel Udaiyar