JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J. 

The present Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2025 in A.S. No.17 of 2024 on the file of I Additional District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2024 passed in O.S. No.39 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi.

2. The 1^st respondent, as plaintiff, filed the above suit for partition, claiming 1/3rd share in the suit properties and for separate possession.

3. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are the sisters of one Thirugnana Shanmugam and the 3^rd defendant is the wife of the said Thirugnana Shanmugam.

4. According to the plaintiff, one Mylsamy Gounder was the absolute owner of the suit properties situate in Naickenpalayam Village, Pollachi Taluk. He and his wife, Valliammal had four daughters, namely, Karunambigai, Vijayalakshmi, Tamilarasi and Indirani and one son Thirugnana Shanmugam. After the demise of Mylsamy Gounder, his wife and four daughters executed a release deed dated 25.11.1981 in favour of Thirugnana Shanmugam, who thereafter married one Rajeswari, who is the appellant herein. The said Thirugnana Shanmugam passed away on 24.01.2010. During his life time, he gifted a house property on 23.05.2007 in favour of his sister Tamilarasi, who was financially weak. Considering the facts that he was issueless; that his wife Rajeswari was financially strong, and that he was suffering from heart ailments, executed a Will dated 07.10.2009, bequeathing the suit 'A' schedule property to his sisters Karunambigai, Vijayalakshmi and Indirani and the suit 'B' schedule property to his wife Rajeswari. Though she was initially granted only a life estate in the 'B' schedule property, the latter portion of the Will vested absolute ownership upon her. While so, the said Rajeswari, after the demise of her husband, mutated the revenue records in her favour and attempted to create third party interest in the suit properties with the intention of defeating the rights of the sisters as conferred under the Will. In these circumstances, the sister Karunambigai instituted a suit in O.S. No.39/2010 before Sub Court, Pollachi, seeking 1/3 share in the suit properties. The other sisters Vijayalakshmi and Indirani were arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 in the above suit. The said Rajeswari was arrayed as the 3^rd defendant in the above suit. The said Raheshwari resisted the suit on the ground that her husband would not have thought of executing a Will at that young age, that too, disinheriting his wife. Her further submission is that, her husband was hale and healthy till his death. The Will has been fabricated by the sisters of her husband with an intention to grab the properties from her. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The learned trial judge, proceeded to consider the validity of the Will. The suit was decreed with respect to 'A' schedule property and dismissed the relief with respect to 'B' schedule property. Aggrieved by this, the wife/3^rd defendant preferred the appeal suit in A.S. No. 17 of 2024 before the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

6. Challenging the same, the 3^rd defendant has preferred the present Second Appeal.

7. The Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the judgments of the courts below are perverse in rendering a finding that the Will dated 07.10.2009 is proved in accordance with law?

2. Whether the courts below erred in ignoring the vital documents, that is, the expert opinion while deciding the genuineness of the Will?”

8. Mr. SrinathSridevan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Mr.T. Deeraj, learned counsel on record for the appellant / 3^rd defendant would submit that, to prove the Will, plaintiff has to examine the attesting witnesses as per Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He would