IMPORTANT POINT
A will must be proven in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Succession Act, including proper attestation and proof of the testator's signature; failure to meet these requirements invalidates the will.

JUDGMENT :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

The defendants are the appellants herein. The respondents are the children of the original plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, which give rise to the instant Second Appeal is that, the suit property was originally belongs to one Janaki Ammal. According to the plaintiff, he is the so called adopted son of Janaki Ammal and Kuppusami Muthiriyar. He also states that, Janaki Ammal executed a registered Will dated 12.01.1975 bequeathing the entire suit property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further submits that, after the demise of Janaki Ammal, the entire suit property devolves upon him, and that he became the absolute owner of the said property. However, the first defendant, who is the wife of Janaki Ammal's brother-in-law [husband's brother] interfered with the possession of the plaintiff, hence, he has come up with a suit for declaration and for delivery of possession.

4. The said suit was resisted by the defendants by contending that the Will was not at all executed by Janaki Ammal, and that the suit property is absolutely belongs to them.

5. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff has marked as many as 13 documents as Exs.A1 to A13 and on behalf of the defendants, 6 documents have been marked as Exs.B1 to B6. On behalf of the plaintiff, 5 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW5 and on behalf of the defendants, 4 witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW4.

6. The Trial Court, after having considered the oral and documentary evidence, has disbelieved the Will-Ex.A3, and has also held that the plaintiff is not the adopted son of Kuppusami Muthiriyar and Janaki Ammal. Thus, ultimately dismissed the suit. Not satisfying with the judgment of the Trial Court, when Govindasami has filed the First Appeal, the First Appellate Court, though reversed the finding and believed Ex.A3-Will, however, reiterated the finding recorded by the Trial Court that he is not the adopted son. Not satisfying with the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the first defendant has approached this Court by way of this Second Appeal.

7. At the time of admitting the Second Appeal on 14.06.2007, this Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law:-

“i) Whether in law the lower appellate court was right in holding that Exhibit A3 will was valid, when proper attestation was not proved satisfying the requirements under Section 68 of The Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 of The Indian Succession Act?

ii) Whether in law the lower appellate Court was not wrong in allowing I.A.No.83 of 2006, for receiving additional evidence without seeing that the mandates of Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code were not satisfied?

iii) Whether in law the lower appellate Court was not wrong in assuming the mantle of a handwriting expert and comparing disputed signatures?

iv) Whether in law the lower appellate Court was right in overlooking that the decree should follow the judgment and that there was no finding supporting clause 6 of the decree for mesne profits?”

8. On 31.10.2022, this Court has formulated the following additional substantial question of law:-

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property as per Hindu Succession Act?”

9. On 16.02.2024, this Court has formulated yet another additional substantial question of law, which is as follows:-

“Whether in law the lower appellate court was right in misconstruing the line of succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in particular, Section 15 and 16 thereof?”

10. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendant would vehemently contend that Ex.A3-Will has not at all been proved in the manner known to law, and that the property would devolve only upon Ramasamy and not to the plaintiff. Therefore, would submit that the appeal is liable to be allowed.

11. However, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff would submit that the Will-Ex.A3 has been