The burden of proof for the genuineness of a will lies with the propounder, and a will may still be valid even if it lacks a signature on every page, provided it meets statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. MANJULA, J.

The appellant is the plaintiff, who has filed the suit for partition claiming 1/6^th share. The trial Court had dismissed the suit and the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff, also got dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the plaintiff has preferred the second appeal.

2. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as under:-

The plaintiff is the son of late Vengadasamy Chettiar, who died intestate. The defendants 1, 2, 3, 4 and the plaintiff are the sons and the 5^th defendant is the daughter of the deceased Vengadasamy Chettiar. The defendant No.6 is the purchaser and the son of the first defendant and in whose favour the first defendant had executed the sale deed and the 7^th defendant is the purchaser from the sixth defendant.

2.2 The suit property belongs to late Vengadasamy Chettiar by virtue of a sale deed dated 05.07.1968. He constructed two storied RCC building and at the back portion he constructed a house. On 15.03.2000 the Vengadasamy Chettiar executed two sale deeds in favour of the first and fourth defendants and sold the house portion to the first defendant and the vacant site to the fourth defendant. The suit property still remains undivided and it is being enjoyed by the plaintiff and the defendants jointly.

2.3. On 02.07.2001 Vengadasamy Chettiar died leaving behind his children, wife along with his mother Venkittammal. After the death of the Vengadasamy Chettiar his (mother)wife Venkittammal was collecting rents from the suit property. She also died on 02.05.2010. After her demise, the first defendant unlawfully collected the rents by himself from the month of April 2001. A panchayat was held in the presence of the village elders and relatives at KR.Krishnamurthy House at Kavanai. In the said panchayat, a compromise was arrived but the first defendant did not accept the compromise.

2.4. The plaintiff and the defendants are living separately due to some misunderstanding between themselves. Hence, the plaintiff demanded for partition by issuing legal notice on 08.10.2003 by claiming 1/6^th share. But the first defendant has sent a reply notice with false allegations that Vengadasamy Chettiar had executed a Will in his favour.

2.5. In view of the false claim made by the first defendant, the plaintiff has filed a suit for partition by claiming 1/6^th share to him. As the defendant sold his property to the sixth defendant when the suit was pending and the sixth defendant in his turn had sold the property to the 7^th defendant and those sale deeds are invalid. The defendants 6 and 7 have also been added as parties to the suit.

3. The short facts pleaded in the written statement are as under:-

Sri Vengadasamy Chettiar during his life time had executed a Will on 20.05.2000 in respect of the suit property and bequeathed the same in favour of the first defendant. Subsequent to the death of Vengadasamy Chettiar the Will came into effect and the revenue records also got mutated in the name of the first defendant and thereafter, the first defendant sold the suit property to the sixth defendant and the 6^th defendant in turn sold the suit property to the seventh defendant.

3.2 The suit has been filed with false allegations. As the suit properties is the self acquired property of Vengadasamy Chettiar and he had also executed Will in favour of the first defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. The firs