The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the authenticity of wills and provide clear documentation to establish ownership rights in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Order 41 Rule 1& 2 of CPC read with Section 96 of CPC, against the Judgement and Decree dated 25.03.2015, made in OS.No.49 of 2010, on the file of the file of the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.)

1. This Appeal Suit has been filed, challenging the judgement and decree, dated 22.01.2015, passed in O.S.No.7450 of 2012 by the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents 1 and 2 are the defendants in the suit. Pending this appeal, since the 1st respondent died, his legal heirs were impleaded as respondents 3 to 6 in this appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition, separate possession, mesne profits, and permanent injunction.

3. The case of the plaintiff, as set out, in the plaint is as follows:-

a) The suit schedule properties belonged to the plaintiff and the 1st defendant jointly and are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The 1st defendant is the brother of the plaintiff's husband. The suit properties were jointly purchased on 24.6.1954, by one Pangajammal, maternal aunt of the plaintiff and one Gajalakshmiammal, mother of 1st defendant and were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. Since, Pangajammal had no issues, she bequeathed her share of properties, to the plaintiff's mother, Anantha, who is the sister of said Pangajammal, by a Will dated 16.12.1973 and she died on 31.8.1974. After her demise, Anantha is entitled for her share of properties. Then the said Anantha, executed a Will on 22.6.2004 in favour of the plaintiff bequeathing her half share in the suit properties and she died on 26.6.2005. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit properties.

b) Another sharer of the suit properties, Gajalakshmiammal, is the mother of the plaintiff's husband, Surendhiran and the 1st defendant and she executed a Will in favour of the 1st defendant, in respect of her half share in the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiff's husband was working in Indian Bank and got retirement on 30.11.2008. The 1st defendant told the plaintiff and her husband to construct a building for rent for the 2nd defendant, by which they can earn considerable amount. Hence, the plaintiff's husband spent his retirement amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and the 1st defendant also spent Rs.15,00,000/- for construction of the building. The plaintiff's husband only looked after the construction work. The 1st defendant looked after the work of getting Municipal Permission, Electricity connection, Telephone connection and talking over rental agreement with the 2nd defendant, etc. For that purpose, the plaintiff, handed over the original documents and signed blank papers to the 1st defendant. During the Opening Ceremony of the 2nd defendant Bank on 14.10.2009, the 1st defendant was announced as the owner of the building. When the plaintiff and her husband, questioned the 1st defendant, he has not given proper reply. He also refused to return the original documents and half share in the rent. Since the original documents belonged to the plaintiff, were with the 1st defendant, he made a false representation to the 2nd defendant and entered into the agreement fraudulently. Hence, the plaintiff sent a letter on 21.10.2009 to the 2nd defendant, as if she is the co-owner of the building and to pay half of the rent to her. But the 2nd defendant did not respond to the plaintiff's words. The plaintiff and her husband were running consultancy in the name of "V Trading Enterprises", in the Eastern side shop of the suit properties. Since, the plaintiff is not able to be in joint possession, she insisted the 1st defendant to divide the suit properties and to effect partition through mediators. But the 1st defendant has not come forward for partition. The plaintiff also sent a legal notice on 12.11.2