The propounder of a Will must prove its execution and attestation in accordance with law, and any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will must be dispelled for it to be considered valid.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 20.02.2020 passed in A.S.No.31 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Vellore @ Ranipet confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 15.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.517 of 2014 on the file of Subordinate Court, Arakonam.

1. This Second Appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 20.02.2020 passed in A.S.No.31 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Vellore @ Ranipet confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 15.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.517 of 2014 on the file of Subordinate Court, Arakonam.

2. The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants in the Second Appeal.

3. The Second Appeal is filed against the confirming judgment and decree of the lower appellate court in dismissing the suit for partition of the plaintiff.

4. The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the trial court.

5. The summary of facts leading to the Second Appeal are as follows:

The plaintiffs and the defendants are the children of one Vedachalam. The said Vedachalam had two wives and the plaintiffs are the first wife's children. The defendants are the children of second wife of Vedachalam. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was the ancestral property of their father Vedachalam. After the death of Vedachalam on 02.11.2007, the plaintiffs and defendants jointly enjoyed the suit property. The plaintiff's state that both the plaintiffs and defendants had equal share in the suit property, but as the defendants were acting against the interest of plaintiffs and also because the defendants were not ready for amicable partition, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit for their 6/8 share in the suit properties.

6. The defendants in the written statement admitted that they were step brothers of plaintiffs, but the defendants denied that the suit property was ancestral property. According to the defendants, the suit property originally belonged to their grand-mother, Dheivanaiammal and she executed a settlement deed in favour of their father, Vedachalam, on 07.04.1973. The defendants hence stated that the suit property was the absolute property of Vedachalam. According to the defendants, out of love and affection for the defendants, Vedachalam, their father, executed a registered Will on 15.02.2007 bequeathing the suit properties to them. Under the Will, the 1st defendant was allotted 'A' schedule property and the 2nd defendant was allotted 'B' schedule property. After the demise of Vedachalam on 02.11.2007, the defendants became the absolute owners of their respective shares and they were in possession and enjoyment of the property by affecting mutation of revenue records in their names. The defendants therefore stated the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the suit property.

7. Before the trial court the 4th plaintiff was examined as P.W1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The 1st defendant examined himself as D.W1 and examined one of the attestors of the Will as D.W2. The defendants marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B12 on their side.

8. The trial court on an appreciation of the entire evidence on record held that the suit property was the absolute property of Vedachalam and that the Will executed by Vedachalam in favour of the defendant was valid and it was proved in accordance with law. The trial court therefore dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S.No.31 of 2016 before II Additional District Judge, Vellore at Ranipet. The lower appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court and held that the suit property was the absolute property of Vedachalam, that the propounder of the Will had proved the same and hence held the Will was valid. The ower appellate court further found that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. The lower appellate court