The main legal point established is that the requirements of proving a Will under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act must be satisfied, and the burden of proof shifts to the opposing party if the initial burden is discharged.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2016 passed in A.S.No.6 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi, modifying (partly allowing) the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2015 passed in O.S.No.252 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi by allowing this Second Appeal.)

1. This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the findings of the Courts below. The legal representatives of the deceased first defendant in the suit O.S.No.252 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi are the appellants herein. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in the suit. The third respondent is the second defendant in the said suit. The suit was filed seeking for the relief of declaration of the plaintiffs'' title over the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction to restrain the first defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs'' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.

2. As seen from the plaint, the suit schedule property originally belonged to Muthupillai and he had bequeathed the same by way of a registered Will dated 30.07.1969 during his life time in favour of Ramakrishnapillai, who is the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff and the second defendant. According to the plaintiffs, Muthupillai died in the year 1973 and the Will dated 30.07.1969 came into force and the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owners for more than 35 years by paying the taxes.

3. It is further contended by the plaintiffs that the beneficiary under the above said Will, namely, Ramakrishnapillai had executed a family arrangement deed dated 29.05.2009 in favour of the first plaintiff, second plaintiff and the second defendant. Based on the family arrangement deed dated 29.05.2009, the plaintiffs traced their title over the suit schedule property and claimed ownership. According to them, the first defendant, who is the brother of Ramakrishnapillai, has no right over the suit schedule property in view of the registered Will dated 30.07.1969 referred to supra.

4. However, as seen from the written statement filed by the first defendant, he denies the execution of the Will dated 30.07.1969 by Muthupillai and that Ramakrishnapillai was the beneficiary under the said Will. According to the first defendant, the said Will is a forged and a fabricated document. According to him, after the life time of Muthupillai, his legal heirs, namely, Pattammal, Subbammal and Valliammal partitioned the properties in the year 1980 and the suit schedule property was allotted to Pattammal. According to the first defendant, after the death of Pattammal in the year 1995, the suit schedule property devolved upon her legal heirs, namely, Ramakrishnapillai and the first defendant. It is further contended by the first defendant that the other female legal heirs of late Pattammal have released their shares and therefore, the first defendant as the brother of Ramakrishnapillai is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property. The first defendant has also pleaded that he has also filed a suit for partition seeking for his half share in the suit schedule property in O.S.No.289 of 2009 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi. In the additional written statement filed by the first defendant, it is also pleaded that the suit schedule property is undervalued and the value declared in the plaint is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

5. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the Trial Court framed issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, four witnesses were examined, namely, P.W.1 to P.W.4 and four documents were filed, which were marked as exhibits A1 to A4. On the side of the first defendan