The propounder of a will bears the initial onus to prove its valid execution. When a will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, such as the beneficiary's active involvement or lack of transparency, the propounder must provide clear and satisfactory evidence to remove such doubts to prove the document's validity.

JUDGMENT :

R. Sakthivel, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated July 30, 1996 made in A.S. No.17 of 1996 by 'the Sub Court, Dharapuram' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], wherein and whereby the Judgment and Decree dated September 15, 1995 passed in O.S. No.169 of 1991 by 'the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was confirmed, the appellant in the Appeal Suit who is the plaintiff in the Original Suit, has preferred this Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit before the Trial Court.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. The plaintiff has instituted the present Suit seeking reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff is the son of the first and second defendants. Defendants 3 and 4 are his brothers, the fifth defendant is his sister and the sixth defendant is the son of the fifth defendant. The plaintiff, along with defendants 1, 3, and 4, executed a registered Settlement Deed dated October 18, 1979 in favour of one Pazhanathal, another sister of the plaintiff. Pursuant thereto, the revenue records were duly mutated in her name. From then onwards, the said Pazhanathal, who remained unmarried was under the care and custody of the plaintiff. On the same day as the Settlement Deed i.e., on October 18, 1979, the plaintiff and defendants 1, 3, and 4 effected a partition of ancestral properties and have since been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. On March 31, 1990, the said Pazhanathal executed an un-registered Will in favour of the plaintiff, bequeathing the suit property that had been settled upon her under the Settlement Deed dated October 18, 1979. Pazhanathal passed away on September 28, 1990 and upon her demise, the Will came into effect. Thereafter, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. However, the plaintiff's peaceful possession was objected, disturbed and interfered with by defendants 5 and 6. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present Suit seeking a declaration of his title to the suit property based on the un-registered Will dated March 31, 1990 and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof.

DEFENDANTS' CASE

4. The first defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendants 2 to 6. The execution of the Settlement Deed dated October 18, 1979 in favour of Pazhanathal is admitted. However, it is contended that possession of the suit property was never handed over to Pazhanathal. The defendants denied the plaintiff's claim that plaintiff and Pazhanathal were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the defendants, Pazhanathal was residing only with her parents i.e., defendants 1 and 2 and was under their care and custody at all material times. Therefore, the alleged unregistered Will dated March 31, 1990 said to have been executed by Pazhanathal is false and fabricated.

4.1. The defendants further contended that there is no satisfactory explanation given by the plaintiff regarding the execution of the said Will and that the thumb impression found therein does not belong to Pazhanathal. It is also stated that, upon the demise of Pazhanathal, her last rites were performed by the first defendant. The allegation that defendants 5 and 6 interfered with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, at the instigation of defendants 1 to 4, was specifically denied. The defendants contended that the said Pazhanathal at all material times were expressing her dissent and dissatisfaction over the conduct and behaviour of the plaintiff and considering all these aspects, it can never be true that she has executed the subject Will and as such, they specifically pleaded that the Will is a forged and fabricated document.

4.2. The defendants further contended that the present Suit was filed only in view of