IMPORTANT POINT
The registration of a Will provides assurance of its genuineness, and the absence of reference to a prior Will in a subsequent unregistered Will raises suspicion regarding its validity.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer in S.A.No.644 of 2021: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2020 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Court, Namakkal, by partly reversing the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2017 made in O.S.No.240 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode.

Prayer in Cross.Obj.No.41 of 2023: Cross objection is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC read with Section 100 of CPC against the judgment decree dated 08.12.2017 made in O.S.No.240 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode.

This second appeal was admitted by this Court on 26.11.2021 by formulating the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) When there are two Wills, namely, Ex.X1 in favour of the second plaintiff, Ex.B1 in favour of the first defendant, the finding of the First Appellate Court that Ex.X1 is the last Will, when actually Ex.B1 is the last Will, is on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence?

(ii) Whether omission to mention in Ex.B1 Will about Ex.X1 Will would create suspicion in the genuineness of Ex.B1 Will?

(iii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in law in holding that the first defendant has not let in evidence to dispute the suspicion surrounding the Ex.B1 Will?

2. In the suit, the appellant herein is the first defendant and the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession claiming 3/4th share in the suit properties and also for the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and for rendition of accounts relating to the rents realized by the first defendant on and from 01.07.2004, i.e., from the date of death of Late Mari Chettiar, father of the plaintiffs and the first defendant.

4. The first defendant is the brother of the plaintiffs. The suit properties were the ancestral properties of Late Mari Chettiar, who, along with his brother entered into a partition deed dated 08.03.1982, by which, Late Mari Chettiar was provided with certain properties including the suit properties. According to the plaintiffs, in the year 1987, Mari Chettiar and his sons, namely, Lingaraj and Angappan entered into a deed of partition dated 14.12.1987 and in the said partition, Angappan got himself separated from the joint family and was allotted schedule 'B' properties. According to the plaintiffs, their father Late Mari Chettiar and the first defendant were allotted 'A' schedule properties in the said deed of partition. According to the plaintiffs, 'A' schedule property was jointly owned by the first defendant and his father Late Mari Chettiar.

5. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff got married in the year 1992. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father Late Mari Chettiar, during his life time, executed a registered Will dated 06.12.2001, through which, he has bequeathed his 1/6th share in the 'A' schedule properties allotted to him under the registered deed of partition dated 14.12.1987. According to the plaintiffs, under the said Will, his two daughters, namely, the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff were bequeathed with 1/6th share each and apart from that, he has bequeathed his remaining 1/6th share to the second plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs, in the Will dated 06.12.2001, the testator Late Mari Chettiar has also referred to the Act 1 to 1990 to Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in and by which, the plaintiffs have got 1/6th share each in the suit properties. The plaintiffs are claiming partition based on the Will dated 06.12.2001 as well as co-parceners of the 'A' schedule property, which was allotted to their father under deed of partition dated 14.12.1987.

6. The first defendant is the contesting defendant in the suit. The remaining defendants are tenants under the suit properties and they have been given up as party