The validity of a Will requires clear proof of execution and mental capacity of the testator, particularly in disputed cases, with any evidential discrepancies casting doubt on the Will's authenticity.

JUDGMENT

The appellants/plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 2006 has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.61 of 2016 on the file of the the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul, wherein the respondents/defendants herein have filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.49 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul, and the appeal was dismissed by confirming dismissal order passed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred to as per their status/ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows:-

The father of the plaintiff namely, Chandrasekaran and the first defendant are brothers. The defendants 2 & 3 are the purchaser of the suit schedule property from the first defendant. The grand father of the plaintiff name is Ramachandran. He has 5 sons and two daughters including the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant. He was the owner of the suit schedule property and he purchased a property in the year 1982. He executed a registered Will dated 06.02.1998 in favour of the first defendant. Subsequently, he said to have executed a Will dated 27.10.1999 in favour of the plaintiff. The said Ramachandran died on 03.11.1999. In the said Will, he bequeathed his suit schedule property with a condition that the wife of the Ramachandran namely, Maragathavalliis enjoying the property till the attainment of majority of the plaintiff. At the time of Will, the plaintiff was minor and hence, he bequeathed the property in favour of the minor with life intestate to his wife Maragathamani. In the year 2000, the first defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants 2 and 3, on the basis of the registered Will dated 06.02.1998. After attaining majority, the plaintiff sent a legal notice on 16.01.2002 to the first defendant about the Will executed by the Ramachandran in favour of him. The same was received by the first defendant and suitable reply was given on 21.02.2002. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.49 of 2006 seeking declaration and recovery of the suit schedule property from the defendants.

4. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows:-

The first defendant denied the execution of the Will dated 27.10.1999 in favour of the plaintiff. He pleaded that the plaintiff forged and fabricated the Will. The alleged execution of Will dated 27.10.1999, was not executed in fit state of mind. Because, the said Ramachandran died on 03.11.1999 at the stage of loss of memory. It shows that the said Ramachandran was not in a position to execute the Will and the same is forged one. Further, the plaintiff never resided with the deceased Ramachandran and he resided at Chennai with his father.

5. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant 2 & 3 are as follows:-

The defendants 2 and 3 also filed a written statement stating that they are the bone fide purchasers of the suit schedule property. The Will dated 27.10.1999 was forged one. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff with the forged Will.

6.Based on the above said pleading, the trial Court has framed the following issues:-

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property?

2.What other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

7. Before the trial Court on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and also others were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.4 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the defendants 1 and 2 were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and another one was examined as D.W.3 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B18.

7.1. After analyzing the evidence adduced on both sides, th