IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the validity of a Will must be proven in accordance with the statutory requirements of execution and attestation, and that the presence of suspicious circumstances requires the propounder to provide clear evidence to dispel such suspicions.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, dated 09.08.2016 in A.S. No.112 of 2010 reversing the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruppur, dated 03.12.2009 in O.S. No.264 of 2004.

The Plaintiffs, in a suit for partition, having succeeded before the trial Court, but having lost before the First Appellate Court, are the Appellants herein.

2. For sake of convenience, the parties are described as pet their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The material facts that are necessary for disposal of this Second Appeal are as hereunder:-

3(i). The suit was originally filed by Kamalam, the daughter of Pechianna Asari and P.Ramathal. As she died pending the suit, her legal representatives, viz. her husband and children were brought on record as the Plaintiffs 2 to 5. The wife of the deceased brother of the 1st Plaintiff, Duraisamy, viz., Pankajam is the 1st defendant. The wife, son and daughter respectively, of another brother of the 1st Plaintiff, P.Natarajan as defendants 2 to 4. The sister of the 1st Plaintiff, Palaniammal is the 5th defendant.

3(ii). The case of the 1st Plaintiff is that the 2 items of suit property, I and II, were purchased by her father, Pechianna Asari, by registered sale deeds dated 03.04.1973 and 13.06.1973. The Schedule-C property was purchased by the mother P.Ramathal, under a registered Sale Deed dated 12.11.1955. The mother died intestate on 22.06.2003 and the father also subsequently died intestate on 20.04.2004. Claiming to be a Class-I legal heir, Kamalam, the Plaintiff sought for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit properties.

4. The 1st defendant filed a written statement supporting the claim of the Plaintiff seeking partition. The 5th defendant also filed her written statement and stated that she was also entitled to an equal 1/4th share, being a daughter of Late.Pechianna Asari and P.Ramathal. However, the defendants 2 to 4, wife, son and daughter respectively, one of the brothers of the Plaintiff, viz. P.Natarajan filed a written statement, admitting the relationship set out in the plaint. These defendants denied that Late.Pechianna Asari and P.Ramathal died intestate and on the contrary stated that they had executed registered Will dated 10.06.1999 and 27.11.1996 respectively, bequeathing their respective properties to the 4th defendant, their only grandson, giving a life interest to the 2nd defendant, their daughter-in-law. Thus, these defendants alone resisted the suit for partition taking umbrage under the Wills said to have been executed by Late.Pechianna Asari and P.Ramathal.

5. Before the Trial Court, the 4th Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits.A-1 to A-13 on the side of the Plaintiffs. On the side of the defendants, the defendants 1 and 2 examined themselves as D.W.1 and D.W.2. The attesting witnesses to the 2 Wills were examined as D.W.3 and D.W.4. Exhibits B-1 to B-13 were marked on the side of the defendants.

6. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the Wills were nor proved and proceeded to grant a decree for partition.

7. On appeal by the defendants 2 to 4, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit for partition, holding that the Wills of both Pechianna Asari as well as P.Ramathal had been proved.

8. Aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the First Appellate Court, the Plaintiffs have preferred the above Second Appeal. The above second appeal has been admitted on 26.04.2023, on the following questions of law:

“a) Whether the defendants 2 to 4 failed to establish that the procedures and formalities required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and the mode and manner prescribed under Section 68 of the Evidence Act have been complied with and