The court established that a Will must comply with statutory requirements to be considered valid, emphasizing the importance of proper attestation and execution.

JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The defendants in O.S.No. 149 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Court / Fast Track Court No.II at Cuddalore are the appellants herein.

2. During the pendency of the Appeal, the first appellant died and his legal representatives have been brought on record as third to sixth appellants. It is to be noted that the first and second appellants are the brothers of the first and second respondents.

3. The first and second respondents had filed O.S.No. 149 of 2008 seeking partition and separate possession of their ½ share in the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was land and building measuring 3150 square feet at Door No. 5-B/245 at Gangaikondan, Vridhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore. By Judgment dated 27.04.2011, a preliminary decree was passed granting partition of the suit schedule properties. Questioning that Judgment and Preliminary decree, the defendants had filed the present appeal.

O.S.No. 149 of 2008 – Additional District Court/Fast Track Court -II, Cuddalore:

4. The plaintiffs, who are sisters of the defendants claimed that the suit schedule property belonged to their father, Subramania Mudaliar. After the death of the father intestate, it was claimed that the plaintiffs and the defendants were each entitled to an undivided 1/4^th share in the suit schedule property. It had been claimed that the defendants denied the right of the plaintiffs to seek partition and under that circumstance filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of their ½ share in the suit schedule property.

5. In the written statement filed, the relationship among the parties was admitted. It was contended that the plaintiffs were leading a comfortable life after marriage. It was further contended that the father had executed a Will on 08.05.2003 duly executed and attested bequeathing the property to the defendants. The reason why such bequeath was made was also stated in the Will. It was claimed that the defendants were therefore in lawful possession of the suit schedule property.

6. A reply statement had been filed by the plaintiffs stating that the Will was not genuine and was forged. They denied the execution and valid attestation of the Will. It was stated that the Will was concocted. The relief of partition was again sought.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:-

“(i) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an undivided 1/4^th share each in the suit schedule property?;

(ii) Whether the claim of the defendants that their father Subramania Mudaliar had executed a Will dated 06.05.2003 and therefore, the property stood vested with the defendants was correct?;

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary decree is claimed in the plaint?; and (iv) To what other reliefs are the parties entitled to.”

8. During trial, the first plaintiff was examined herself as PW-1 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-6. Ex.A-6 was a copy of a Will dated 03.06.1997 executed by Subramania Mudaliar. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant examined himself as DW-1 and also examined three other witnesses as DW-2, DW-3 and DW-4. One document, Ex.D-1, the original of the Will dated 08.05.2003 was marked.

9. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence adduced had stated that the Will marked as Ex.D-1 dated 08.05.2003 had not been proved in manner known to law and therefore granted preliminary decree of partition and separate possession as prayed for by the plaintiffs.

10. Challenging that Judgment and Preliminary Decree, the defendants