The execution validity of a Will can be upheld with sufficient evidence from attesting witnesses under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

J U D G M E N T

st The 1 defendant in O.S.No.160/2005 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry, a suit for fixation of boundary and injunction, has come up in the present appeal aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry and the Additional District Court, Kottayam in A.S.No.122/2008.

2. Going by the plaint averments, the plaintiffs are sisters and defendants 1 and 2 are their brothers. Third defendant is another sister of the parties. The properties described in the plaint schedule belonged to one Madukkakkal Ouseph, the father of the parties and who passed away on 12.3.2001. A registered Will deed No.16/III/98 dated 7.2.98 in respect of the properties was executed in Karukachal SRO. The plaint schedule properties were described as A to F in the Will deed and was allotted to plaintiffs and st defendants 1 and 2, respectively. Plaint item No.1 belongs to the 1 plaintiff by the ‘Will’ and settlement deed No.2081/99. Plaint item nd No.2 devolved upon the 2 plaintiff as per the Will deed and settlement Deed No.705/98. Plaint item No.3 devolved upon the rd

3 plaintiff by the Will deed and she is in possession of the said th property. Item No.4 devolved upon the 4 defendant by Will deed as well as the settlement Deed No.315/98 of Karukachal SRO. Plaint st item No.5 devolved upon the 1 defendant and item No.6 on the nd

2 defendant as per the Will deed. Plaint item No.7 devolved upon rd the 3 defendant. Since there are no permanent boundaries between the plaint schedule properties, the same resulted in disputes between the parties. The plaintiffs demanded the defendants 1 and 2 several times to put up permanent boundaries. Since the defendants 1 and 2 did not accede to the request, the suit st was instituted. The 1 defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement stating that the suit is not maintainable. For 32 years, the property is in his possession and he is cultivating and enjoying the said property. The father after receiving Rs.1,000/- had given the st property to the 1 defendant. Thus, he has perfected title over the property by adverse possession. Moreover, the execution of the Will nd was also disputed. The 2 defendant also filed a written statement st stating that the suit is not maintainable and that the 1 defendant had no right over the property, except plaint item No.5. Defendants 2 and 3 set ex parte. On behalf of plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A6 documents were produced and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B14 documents were produced and DW1 and DW2 were examined. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the report and plan prepared by the advocate commissioner. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the Will stands unequivocally proved and accordingly, decreed the suit accepting the report and plan of the advocate commissioner. Aggrieved, the 1^st defendant preferred AS No.122 of 2008 before the Additional District Court, Kottayam. By judgment dated 23.6.2011, the appeal was dismissed and hence, the present second appeal.

3. Heard Sri.A.R.Gangadas, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

4. On considering the submissions raised across the bar by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is not persuaded to admit the appeal, though it was instituted in the year 2011. On 1.2.2012, notice before admission was ordered and after completion of service, the matter is posted today before this Court to consider as to whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration. 5. The dispute in the appeal centers around the execution of the ‘Will’ . As regards the fixation of boundary, it is pertinent to note that once the validity of the Will is upheld, necessarily, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for fixation of bou