The court emphasized that the burden of proof for the validity of a Will, especially in the presence of suspicious circumstances, lies with the propounder.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

The unsuccessful first defendant has preferred appeal before this Court as against the judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.175 of 2009 dated 09.10.2014 on the file of the I Additional District Judge (PCR), Thiruchirapalli. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank before the trial Court.

2.Brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

The plaintiff, first defendant and one Late.S.Subramanian are the sons of one V.Singaram Chettiar. The second defendant is the wife of the Late.S.Subramanian. The said V.Singaram Chettiar died on 02.06.2009 and the Subramanian had predeceased Singam Chettiar leaving the 2^nd defendant as his legal heir. The suit schedule properties item Nos.1 and 2 are belonged to Singaram Chettiar. The suit schedule properties item No.3 is the Bank deposits. A legal notice dated 24.07.2009 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendants for seeking partition. The first defendant attempted to alienate the suit property. Public notice was also served on 14.07.2009 and 15.07.2009 in the leading Newspaper. Another legal notice dated 13.07.2009 was also issued to ICICI Bank, Trichy. A reply notice dated 21.07.2009 and 19.08.2009 were received from the first defendant containing false and frivolous allegations. A reply notice dated 22.08.2009 was received from the Bank by stating that first defendant has already withdrawn the amount. In the reply notice issued by the first defendant would contend that Singaram Chettiar has executed a Will dated 28.10.2008 in favour of the first defendant. The said Singaram Chettiar was not in a sound disposing state of mind and he has not subscribed his signature to the alleged Will. The said Singaram Chettiar was under the influence and control of the first defendant right from the beginning of October 2008. The said Will alleged to have been executed is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Hence, this suit.

3.Brief Case of the first defendants is as follows:-

The defendant contended that on 28.10.2008, Singaram Chettiar executed an un-registered Will, while he was in sound disposing state of mind. The Will was executed in the presence of the attestors and on his demise, the Will has come into force. The first defendant has been appointed as nominee in respect of the fixed deposit and savings bank account held in ICICI Bank. Nomination has also been confirmed by the recitals found place in the recitals of the Will. The plaintiff had received the entire sale proceeds of the agricultural land owned by the first defendant's mother Late.Valliyammal by playing fraud upon his father Late.Singaram Chettiyar. In spite of several mediations held in the presence of V.N.Chidambaram Chettiar and other elders, the plaintiff did not yield to any of their advise. The plaintiff has suppressed the above facts. On the 16^th day ceremony, the Will was exhibited in the presence of the plaintiff, other members of the family. The first defendant had already executed a registered settlement deed on 12.06.2009 in favour of his son. The assessment of property tax is also been transferred. Hence, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4.Brief case of the second defendant is as follows:-

The second defendant has got equal right in the properties of her father-in-law. The alleged Will dated 28.10.2008 is nothing but concoct