Proper proof of a Will is essential, and Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act does not apply to a Will.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 02.01.2020 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam, Vellore District in A.S.No.4 of 2017 reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 21.03.2017 passed by the learned District Munsif, Gudiyattam, in O.S.No.99 of 2009.)

1. The defendant is the appellant before this Court challenging the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam, in A.S.No.4 of 2017, in and by which, the learned Judge has reversed the Judgment and Decree of the District Munsif, Gudiyattam in O.S.No.99 of 2009. It is necessary to elude to the facts of the case preceding the filing of this second appeal in order to appreciate the objection to the Judgment and Decree under appeal. While so doing, the parties are referred to in the same array as before the Trial Court.

2. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.99 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Gudiyattam, to declare his title to the property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men, servants, agents, etc., from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property and other properties belonged to his father Naduppivadan @ Chinnappa Naidu (hereinafter, referred to 'Chinnappa Naidu'). The properties had fallen to his share under an oral partition. On 28.12.1978, the Chinnappa Naidu executed a Will bequeathing the suit property to the plaintiff. In the year 1980, the said Chinnappa Naidu died and the Will came into force. The plaintiff would submit that he has his house abutting on the eastern side of the suit property and the suit property was used as front courtyard by the plaintiff. The suit property and the plaintiff's property form an inseparable unit. While so, the defendant, who is an utter stranger to the property started to claim title over the same. In the first week of February, 2009, she had attempted to unlawfully take the possession. In view of the above, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 09.02.2009, but however, there was no response to the same. Therefore, left with no other alternative, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit in question.

3. The suit property has been described as a vacant site in Bakkalapalli Village within the following boundaries:-

On the West by Ambur Road

On the East by vacant site of plaintiff

North by defendant's house

South by Elappalli Govindan's house

4. The defendant had filed a written statement inter-alia denying the contentions raised by the plaintiff and contending that the Will executed by the plaintiff's father is not a valid Will, since he had no right to the property. Further, the defendant would contend that the property belonged to the sons of Munusamy Naidu, namely Kuppusamy Naidu, Duraisamy Naidu, Raji Naidu. They had sold the suit property to their sister Thulasiammal under a registered sale deed dated 12.11.1943. Thereafter, the said Thulasiammal had got the revenue records mutated in her name and had been enjoying the same from the date of purchase. Thereafter, on 28.02.1986, the said Thulasiammal has sold the property to the defendant. The defendant would further contend that although they had a sale deed in respect of the suit property, however, it is also to be taken note that the defendant and his predecessors in title have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for over several decades and therefore, they had also prescribed title to the property through adverse possession.

5. The Trial Court had framed the following issues:-

The plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1 and one T.S.Murali as P.W.2 and marked Ex.A1 to A8. On the side of the defendant, the defendant had examined herself as D.W.1 and one P.Ramanandhini, Block Additional Tahsildar as D.W.2. They had marked Ex.B1 to B5. That apart, Court document