JUDGMENT

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

The appellants are the plaintiffs 2 to 5 in O.S.No.31 / 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Krisnagiri and challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2015 passed in the said Suit, has filed the present appeal Suit.

2. The case of the plaintiffs, as averred in the plaint, are as follows:

2.1. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 and defendants 1 and 2 are the sons and daughters of the first plaintiff and one Muniammal. The 3rd defendant is the 3rd party to the family of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2. The Suit Property is a house site, admeasuring to an extent of 2370 Sq.Ft., purchased by the wife of the first plaintiff, namely Muniammal and one Valiammal, wife of Munisamy, as per registered Sale Deed dated 27.04.1975. The said Muniammal constructed a thatched house and she had been in possession and enjoyment of the same in respect of her half share i.e., 1185 Sq.Ft. The said Muniammal died on 07.09.1997. After the demise of Muniammal, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 succeeded to the said property. During the lifetime of Muniammal, she has not expressed that she has executed Will in favour of the first defendant and the plaintiffs only takes care of the first plaintiff and the said Muniammal and that the said Muniammal had no intention to execute any will in favour of the first defendant.

2.2. On 04.03.2014, when the third defendant came to the Suit property along with his men and attempted to dig a foundation in the suit property, for which the plaintiffs prevented the 3rd defendant from doing so. The 3rd defendant informed the plaintiffs that the 1st defendant sold the suit property to him. The plaintiffs immediately applied the copy and the Sale Deed stands in the name of the 3rd defendant on 14.03.2014. After receipt of the Sale Deed on 17.03.2014, the plaintiffs came to know from the recitals of the Sale Deed that Muniammal had executed a Will dated

19.08.1997 in favour of the first defendant.

2.3. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that the date of death of Muniammal is 07.09.1997 and 18 days prior to the death of the said Muniammal, the said Will was fabricated by the 1st defendant, taking advantage of the old age and ill health of the said Muniammal. According to the plaintiffs, the Muniammal was not in sound state of mind and she was bedridden, unable to move anywhere and hence the alleged Will dated 19.08.1997 is a forged one and the 1st defendant is not entitled to claim any right based on the said forged Will. According to the plaintiffs, the Suit Property belongs to Muniammal and the plaintiff's and the defendants 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of the said Muniammal and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to equal shares in the suit property and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to 5/7 shares in the Suit Property and the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 1/7th share each in the Suit Property. The 1st defendant had fraudulently created the Will and the defendants did not come forward for division of Suit properties amicably and therefore, the plaintiff has filed the aforesaid Suit for the following reliefs:

(a) for partition in respect of the plaintiffs 5/7 shares in the suit property;

(b) divide the suit property by appointing a Commissioner into 7 equal shares by metes and bounds with reference to good and bad soil in the final decree proceedings ;

(c) allot 5 such shares to plaintiffs and put them in separate possession of the same;

(d) declaring a Will dated 19.08.1997 stands in the name of the 1st defendant as null and void.

(e) declaring the sale deed dated 18.06.2009 created by the 1st defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant as null and void.

(f) granting permanent injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from trespassing in to the suit properties or making any construction in the suit property till the partition is effected and plaintiff's share allotted separately;

(g) direct the defendants to pay costs of the suit; and (h) to grant such other reliefs.

3.