IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a Will's validity is not negated by the exclusion of heirs, provided its execution is proven and no undue influence is demonstrated.

JUDGMENT :

S.Sounthar, J.

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 12.11.2008, passed in A.S.No.29 of 2008 on the file of Sub-Court, Aruppukottai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 04.04.2008, passed in O.S.No.189 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai.

The first defendant in the suit for injunction is the appellant. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the first defendant has come by way of this Second Appeal.

2. Pending Second Appeal, the sole appellant/first defendant died and his legal heirs were brought on record as Appellants 2 to 4. It is also seenthat the third respondent/second defendant died pending Second Appeal and his legal heirs were brought on record as Respondents 4 and 5.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiffs 2 and 3, along with their deceased mother, deceased first plaintiff, namely, Meenakshi Ammal, filed the suit for bare injunction. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was the self-acquired property of the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the defendants 1 and 2 were her children. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the first plaintiff executed a Will, dated 18.01.2001, in favour of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 in respect of A-Schedule property. From that date on wards, all the plaintiffs had been in possession and enjoyment of the same jointly. The first plaintiff executed a Settlement Deed, settling the B-Schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. Likewise, the first plaintiff executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the third plaintiff in respect of item 'C' of the property. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 had taken possession of the property from the date of settlement and they had been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interference from any quarter. That being so, the defendants, without having any manner of right, made an attempt to encroach the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for bare injunction.

4. The defendants filed a written statement and denied the averments in the plaint as if the suit property was the self-acquired property of the first plaintiff. They also denied the Will, executed by the first plaintiff. It was further averred that there was no necessity for the first plaintiff to exclude the defendants 1 and 2, who were male heirs. It was also pleaded that the other plaintiffs exerted influence and coercion on the first plaintiff and got the Will in their favour. The defendants also denied the execution of the Settlement Deed, pleaded in the plaint. They also denied the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and claimed that the suit property originally belonged to the father of the defendants. It was claimed by the defendants that the father of the parties died when the defendants were minors and hence the revenue documents stood in the name of the first plaintiff, however, the custody of the revenue documents was with the defendants. On these pleadings, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, the third plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and the attestor to the Will and the Settlement Deed pleaded by the plaintiffs was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the plaintiffs, 17 documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-17. The first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and yet another witness was examined as D.W.2. On behalf of the defendants, 9 documents were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-9.

6. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs proved their prima facie title over the suit property and also possession. As a consequence, the suit for bare injunction was decreed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.29 of 2008. The first appellate