A Will remains valid unless completely revoked by clear and sufficient evidence as stipulated in the relevant succession laws.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. The Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Hosur in A.S. No. 12 of 2013 dated 29.10.2014. The respondents herein, being the Plaintiffs, have filed the Suit in O.S. No. 190 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur for the relief of partition and the said Suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the Plaintiffs have preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Hosur in A.S. No. 12 of 2013 and the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and allowed the appeal and decreed the Suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendants.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, ‘the parties’ hereinafter will be referred to as per their status/ranking in the Trial Court.

3. The case of the Plaintiffs is that originally, the Suit property belonged to Seegalappa, who was the father of the 1^st Plaintiff and grand father of the 2^nd plaintiff and the defendant. The said Seegalappa had executed a Will dated 16.03.1993 in favour of his daughter and his grand sons namely the 2^nd Plaintiff and the defendant. The said Seegalappa died on 03.08.2010. After the demise of the said Seegalappa, the Will came into effect and as per the Will, the Plaintiffs and the defendants are equally entitled to 1/3 share. After the death of Seegalappa, the Plaintiffs and the defendant have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the Suit property. The Plaintiffs demanded the defendant for amicable partition, but he refused for partition. Therefore, filed the Suit.

4. The case of the defendant is that the Suit is not maintainable and the Plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the averments made in the Plaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. Originally the land in S. No.787 of Mathigiri village to an extent of 2.46 acres belonged to one Venkatesulu, Ramaiah and Yellappa sons of Tirupalliappa. They have sold the entire extent of properties to one Sanjeevaiah, Venkata Ramanappa and Ramanujaiah. The 1/3rd extent of 88 cents was allotted to one Ramanujaiah S/o. Sanjveevaiah and he sold the said property to Seegalappa through a Sale Deed dated 24.08.1947. Therefore, the said Seegalappa is the original owner of the property in S. No.787/2 to an extent of 88 cents. The said Seegalappa had three sons and two daughters namely Muniyappa, Periya Thoppamma, Chinna Thoppamma, Somasekar, Seenappa @ Sreenivasan. The said Periya Thoppamma is the 1^st Plaintiff and the said Muniyappa had one son and three daughters and Chinna Thoppamma is having one son and two daughters. Somasekar is having 3 daughters and two sons Murali @ Murali Mohan and Muniraj. Seenappa @Sreenivas has two sons Narayanasamy and Anandh.

4.1. The original owner Seegalappa had executed a registered Will dated24.10.1990 in favour of the defendant Murali and his brother Muniraj and bequeathed the entire property in S.F. No.787/2 to an extent of 88 cents. Subsequently, on 16.03.1993, the said Seegalappa was forced to cancel the said Will dated 24.10.1990 under a Cancellation Deed and on the same day, the said Seegalappa was forced to execute another registered Will in favour of Thoppamma and the 2^nd Plaintiff Narayanasamy and the defendant Murali. In the second Will dated 16.03.1993 a name has been mentioned as ‘Thoppamma’ and it leads to confusion as t