The burden lies on the propounder of a Will to prove its validity under Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; registration alone does not establish authenticity.

JUDGMENT :

Unsuccessful defendants have preferred the present appeal. The suit is filed for partition and for permanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit for directing the division of the suit property into three equal shares and one such share shall be allotted to the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and one such share shall be allotted to the 4^th plaintiff. The plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of their 2/3^rd share in the suit properties till the passing of final decree. The parties are referred as per their ranking in the trial Court.

2. The brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows:The suit property is originally belonged to one Karae Gowder by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 02.04.1963. He died on 08.08.1988. He had two sons viz., Chinnasamy and Palanisamy respectively and one daughter viz., Rathinam/4^th plaintiff herein. The said Chinnasamy pre-deceased his father on 27.06.1986, and the said Chinnasamy's widow also died on 01.10.1995. On the death of Karae Gowder, the following were the legal and natural heirs:

a. Widow Nanjammal @ Nanjakkal

b. Children of pre-deceased Chinnasamy

c. daughter Rathinam/4^th plaintiff

d. Palanisamy – second son – he died later on 08.03.2011

e. Palanisamy's heirs are defendants No.1 Widow, No.2. Son and No.3 Daughter.

3. The daughters of Plaintiff No.4 and children of the sons defendants 1 to 3 succeeded as heirs of the each group becoming entitled to get 1/3 share. The second defendant died intestate and the 6^th defendant is also one of the heir of the second defendant.

4. The second defendant had purported to execute an alleged settlement deed dated 29.11.2013 of a portion of a suit property to his wife 4^th defendant. The second defendant had also executed an alleged sale deed dated 28.03.2013 for another portion of the suit property to the 5^th defendant (who is the husband of one Jayalakshmi/3^rd defendant herein). The second defendant pretends and reacts as if Karae Gowder had executed an alleged Will dated 29.06.1987 in favour of the second defendant alone. The said Karae Gowder had never executed any Will and he had suffered from Cancer for more than three years before death and never in a physical or mental condition and he was under the care and custody of the 4^th plaintiff. A registered general power of attorney dated 13.06.2008 among others by the son Palanisamy and daughter, the 4^th plaintiff and the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 2 and 3 in which categorical declaration is Karae Gowder died interstate. A declaration executed before a Notary Advocate on 07.05.2008 by the son Palanisamy, father of the second defendant and 4^th plaintiff and plaintiffs 1 to 3, are declaring that the said Karae Gowder died intestate. The alleged deed of settlement and alleged sale are void and cannot affect the 2/3 share of the plaintiffs. The defendants 4 and 5 cannot derive any title and at anyrate only the 1/3^rd share of Palanisamy. Hence, the suit.

5. The brief case of the defendants is as follows:

The written statement filed by the second defendant is adopted by the defendants 1, 3 to 5. They denied that the said Karae Gowder died intestate. The widow of Karae Gowder also died on 28.08.1996 and 4^th plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 succeeded as heirs, but it is deni