The court upheld a will's validity and granted property shares according to inheritance laws, emphasizing the need for efficient resolution in familial disputes.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.98 of 2008 dated 28.04.2023 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Kallakurichi in confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.935 of 2004, dated 13.04.2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.

2. Heard Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr.A.Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6 and perused the materials available on record.

3. For a sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.

4. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, defendants 1 and 4 to 7 preferred this appeal.

5. Before the trial court plaintiffs, filed a suit O.S. No. 935 of 2024 praying for partition and claiming 2/3 share in the A-scheduled property, along with a declaration that the B-scheduled property absolutely belonged to the 1st Plaintiff.

6. The suit was filed against the legal heirs of the deceased Saminathan, who was the son of the 1st Plaintiff, Sellammal. After hearing both sides, the trial court concluded that the 1st item of the suit property belonged to RajaManikam, who died intestate, leaving behind his wife Sellammal, daughter Indhirani, and son Saminathan. Accordingly, the trial court granted 2/3 share in favour of the plaintiffs and 1/3 share to all the defendants.

7. In respect of the B-scheduled property, which was purchased in the name of Sellammal, the plaintiffs submitted relevant sale deeds (marked as Exhibits P1 to P8). Based on the evidence, the trial court held that the B- scheduled property was the absolute property of the 1st Plaintiff and allowed the suit.

8. Challenging these findings, Defendants 1 and 4 to 7 preferred an appeal, A.S. No. 98 of 2008. Admittedly, Sellammal was the mother, and the 2nd Plaintiff, Indhirani, was her daughter. The defendants were the legal heirs of Samynathan, the deceased son of the 1st Plaintiff.

9. The appeal, filed in 2008, was dismissed for default in 2015. In the meantime, Sellammal passed away in 2010. During her lifetime, she executed a registered will in favour of her daughter Indhirani and her husband Rajakkannu. During this period, the appeal was not active. To enforce the will, the beneficiaries filed an application I.A No. 2790 of 2011 before the trial court. The trial court took the application on file and issued notices to the respondents/contesting defendants. To prove the will, one of the attesting witnesses was examined as D.W.2.

10. After cross-examining the witnesses, the trial court concluded that the will was valid and proven. The court held that the beneficiaries were necessary parties to the proceedings and accordingly allowed the application on 05.12.2013. Subsequently, the appeal was restored. After hearing both sides, the appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

11. Challenging the concurrent findings, Defendants 1 and 4 to 7, the legal heirs of the deceased Samynathan, have now preferred this appeal.

12. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondents who contested the appeal herein is Indhirani and her husband, Rajakannu, as beneficiaries under the Will on behalf of the first plaintiff.

During the pendency of the proceedings, Indhirani passed away, and her legal heirs were impleaded as Respondents 1 to 6. He further submitted that, regarding the execution of t