The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the execution of a Will in compliance with legal provisions and the consideration of suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C to set aside the judgement and decree dated 21.11.2006 made in A.S.No.57 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2005 made in O.S.No.146 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram.

The second defendant has filed this Second Appeal challenging the judgment passed in A.S.No.57 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode in and by which the learned Judge has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram in O.S.No.146 of 2000.

2. The parties are referred to in the same litigative status as before the trial Court for ease of understanding.

3. The relief claimed in the suit O.S.No.146 of 2000 is as follows:-

4. The facts as set out in the pleadings are herein below set out in a nutshell.

PLAINTIFFS' CASE:-

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the properties in question are the ancestral properties of their father, Sami Gounder. Sami Gounder had five children, namely Thangavelsami Gounder (the first defendant herein), Subramania Gounder (the father of the second defendant), Mailathal, Pushpathal and Alamelu ammal (the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the suit). Pending the suit, Pushpathal had passed away and her children, Nachimuthu Gounder and Balakrishnan were brought on record.

6. The plaintiffs would submit that the properties were partitioned between Sami Gounder and his two sons, the first defendant and the father of the second defendant, Subramania Gounder under a registered deed dated 27.05.1971. Under this partition, the 'A' schedule property was allotted to Sami Gounder. On 30.01.2000, Sami Gounder died intestate and the plaintiffs, the first defendant and the second defendant, the predeceased daughter of the son Subramania Gounder, were each entitled to 1/5th share. The plaintiffs would submit that despite several requests, the defendants were not coming forward to execute the partition deed and consequently, they have been constrained to file the suit in question for the reliefs set out supra.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE SECOND DEFENDANT ADOPTED BY THE FIRST DEFENDANT:-

7. The defendants would admit that the property was the ancestral property of Sami Gounder and also there was partition in the year 1971. Thereafter, it is their case that on 15.12.1999, Sami Gounder had executed a Will bequeathing the schedule property in favour of the second defendant. They would contend that the plaintiffs had been given in marriage on account of the efforts of the father of the second defendant. The second defendant would submit that after the partition, Sami Gounder had been exercising his rights as absolute owner and in the year 1983, he had sold portions of the property to meet the wedding expenses of the plaintiffs.

8. The second defendant would contend that she had been taking care of her grandfather, Sami Gounder and therefore, she and her husband were residing in the property along with Sami Gounder. They were the ones, who were cultivating the lands and also developed the lands by planting nearly 150 coconut saplings, obtained electricity service connection for the Well and etc. She would submit that since Sami Gounder has executed a Will in her favour, the plaintiffs could have no right or interest in the suit property.

TRIAL COURT:-

9. The learned Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, had framed the following issues:-

10. Later, additional issue was framed by the learned Subordinate Judge, which reads as under:-

11. On the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff had examined herself as P.W1 and one Viswanathan was examined as P.W2 and the documents on their side were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. On the side of the defendants, the second defendant had examined herself as D.W1 and one Thangamuthu, the alleged attestor of the Will, Ex.B27, was examined as D.W2 and 27 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B27.

12. The learned Subordinate Judge had framed the additional is