The burden of proving a Will lies with the propounder, and compliance with procedural requirements under the Indian Evidence and Succession Acts is crucial for its validity.

JUDGMENT :

R. Sakthivel, J.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated January 29, 2019 passed in A.S.No.57 of 2014 by the 'First Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated February 27, 2013 passed in O.S.No.1894 of 2007 by the ‘I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore'['Trial Court' for brevity] was reversed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties Will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFFS' CASE

3. The Suit Property, a residential house, along with a larger extent of properties originally belonged to one Narayanan by virtue of Release Deed dated November 2, 1963 [Registered in Document No.6238/1963]. The plaintiffs are the daughters while the defendants are the sons of the said Narayanan. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. While so, Narayanan executed a Registered Will dated March 31, 1999 in favour of the plaintiffs bequeathing the Suit Property. Post his demise on February 20, 2007, the Registered Will was duly implemented and acted upon. Since then, the first plaintiff is residing in the Suit Property with the consent of the second plaintiff. The second defendant is living in his respective share allotted through a Settlement Deed dated January 27, 1999 executed by Narayanan.

3.1. Further it is averred that all of a sudden, there arose a difference of opinion between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the defendants forcibly tried to trespass into the Suit Property and tried to occupy the same questioning the validity of the Will. On August 19, 2007 the defendants openly proclaimed that they will trespass into the Suit Property and lock the house. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a Suit for the relief of declaration that the Will is genuine, true, valid and binding on the defendants and permanent injunction.

DEFENDANTS' CASE

4. The defendants filed a written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiffs. It is averred that the Suit Property, a part of larger co-parcenary property consisting of residential buildings, belonged to one Nallama Naidu alias Petha Naidu (as ancestral property).During Nallama Naidu’s lifetime, his sons – Narayanan and Ranganathan acquired interest in the coparcenary by birth. After Nallama Naidu’s demise, they both along with their mother acquired equal rights in the Nallama Naidu’s share. Subsequently, Narayanan's brother - Ranganathan and his mother relinquished their respective shares in the properties and executed a Release Deed in favour of Narayanan on November 2, 1963 [Registered in Document No.6238/1963]. Thus, Narayanan became the absolute owner of the properties covered under the Release Deed and he alienated the same in favour of the second defendant by way of Settlement Deed. The property remaining intact as coparcenary property after the Settlement is the Suit Property herein. The plaintiffs got married respectively in the year 1971 and 1974 and thereby, both of them were excluded to claim any share in the Suit Property. Thus, the Suit Property is coparcenary property of the coparcenary consisting of the defendants, their male descendants and their unmarried daughters. Father Narayanan lived with the second defendant till his passing on February 20, 2007 and never executed any Will out o