JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.06.2019 in A.S.No.13 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2018 in O.S.No.490 of 2012 on the file of District Munsif, Udumalpet.)

1. The plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant before this Court, challenging the reversal of the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Udumalpet in O.S.No.490 of 2012 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet in A.S.No.13 of 2018.

2. The facts in brief which are essential for disposing of the above second appeal are herein below set out and the parties are referred to in the same litigative ranking as before the trial Court.

3. The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on 12.08.2021 on the following substantial questions of law:

(a) Whether the first appellate Court correct in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court especially when Exs.B24 and B25 have not been proved in the manner known to law?

(b) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge is correct in not considering the fact of total disinheritance of the daughter?

(c) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge is correct in finding that the Will proved in the absence of the evidence of the attestors of the Will?

4. The Genealogy is herein below reproduced for appreciating the relationship between the parties:

Muthusamy (died) 27.08.1999 = Ramathal (died) 10.10.2006

Thirumoorthy Chettiar (died) pending suit = Visalakshi (3rd defendant)

Shenbagavalli (4th defendant)

Sudha (5th Defendant)

Thirumalaiammal (died) 18.03.2004 = Kuppusamy (died) 08.06.1985

Akkinirajan (Plaintiff)

Maheswari (2nd defendant)

5. Plaintiff's case:

It is the case of the plaintiff that “A” schedule suit property was purchased by his maternal grandfather, Muthusamy Chettiar under a Sale Deed dated 23.11.1958 and “B” schedule suit property was purchased by his maternal grandfather, Muthusamy Chettiar and maternal grandmother, Ramathal under two separate Sale Deeds dated 28.02.1972. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the said Muthusamy Chettiar died on 27.08.1999, his mother Thirumalaiammal, pre-deceased her parents on 18.03.2004. Thereafter, Ramathal, the maternal grandmother, passed away on 10.10.2006. His father, Kuppusamy also passed away on 08.06.1985. Admittedly, the suit properties are self acquired properties of the said Muthusamy Chettiar and Ramathal. On their death, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 became entitled to a 1/3rd share each. Since the plaintiff was not able to enjoy the properties jointly with other co-owners, he had requested the defendants through common friends to effect a partition. Originally, the defendants had informed the Panchayatars that the partition would take after 06.08.2012, but they reneged on their promise. However, the plaintiff came to learn that the defendants were attempting to alienate the properties. Therefore, they had come forward with the instant suit for a partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties.

6. Written statement of the defendants:

The first defendant had filed a written statement, which was adopted by the second defendant. It is their contention that the suit is nothing but an abuse of process of Court, as several true facts were suppressed. They would admit that the properties are the self-acquired properties of both Muthusamy Chettiar and Ramathal. However, they would submit that, on 03.06.1987, the said Muthusamy Chettiar had executed a Will bequeathing the entire properties to the children of the first defendant with the life interest in favour of the first defendant. Muthusamy Chettiar thereafter passed away on 27.08.1999 without revoking the Will. The mutation of the Revenue Records were done in the name of the fourth defendant, Shenbagavalli. It is t