S.S. Sindar, J.—The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.66 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram, is the appellant in this appeal. Since the appellant died during the pendency of this appeal, his legal representatives namely appellants 2 to 8 are prosecuting this appeal. The first respondent in this appeal is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.66 of 1992. The first respondent also died during the pendency of this appeal. The second respondent namely the husband of the first respondent was brought on record, as the legal representative of the deceased first respondent. The second respondent also died subsequently and the third respondent in the appeal was brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased second respondent on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by the second respondent.

2. The deceased first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.66 of 1992 for declaration of her title to the suit properties and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the deceased first appellant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

3. The case of the plaintiff in the suit are as follows:

3.1. The suit properties and numerous other items belonged to one Somasundara @ Ramanathan Chettiar by virtue of a registered partition deed dated 17.6.1954 entered into between the said Ramanathan Chettiar and his brother’s son Sundararajan Chettiar. The said Ramanathan Chettiar is the father of the plaintiff and upon the death of the said Ramanathan Chettiar, on 16.7.1991, the plaintiff, being his only daughter, is the sole heir of Ramanathan Chettiyar.

3.2. After the death of Ramanathan Chettiar, the plaintiff inherited the suit properties as an absolute owner and that she is in physical possession and enjoyment of the properties and other properties. Since the defendant, the first appellant herein was making attempts to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment, the plaintiff stated that she was obliged to file the suit for declaration and consequential injunction. It is admitted that the defendant is the sister’s son of the plaintiff’s father, Late Ramanathan Chettiar.

3.3. The suit was contested by the defendant. Though the defendant admitted that the suit properties belonged to Ramanathan Chettiar, the father of the plaintiff, the defendant claimed title on the basis of the Will alleged to have been executed by the said Ramanathan Chettiar in favour of the defendant. Since the alleged Will is in respect of the properties of Ramanathan Chettiar, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for after holding that the Will dated 23.6.1991 is a suspicious document and that the defendant has not proved the due execution of the Will by the testator in a sound disposing state of mind. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the present appeal has been filed by the defendant.

3.4. As indicated earlier, the plaintiff in the suit died during the pendency of this appeal and her husband was impleaded as the second respondent. Even the husband of the plaintiff, namely, the second respondent, died during the pendency of the appeal, without any issues, through her wife. Hence, the third respondent who claimed to be the legatee under the Will executed by the second respondent dated 1.11.2013, came on record as a person on whom the cause of action survives.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant though raised various grounds in the appeal argued that the appeal has to be allowed on the short ground that the plaintiff having inherited the suit properties from her father and having died intestate and issueless, the properties will revert to the heirs of her father and not to her husband or his heirs in view of Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the suit properties are the properties of the plaintiff’s father. It is also not disp