IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI SA No. 124 of 2026 & CMP.No.3558 of 2026 M. Arumugam S/o Late Murugappan, Thondikadu, Thiruneelakandapuram, Thirumuruganpoondi Post, Rakkipalayam Village, Avinashi Tk, Tiruppur Dist.

Appellant(s)

Vs

1. Neelamani W/o Subramaniam, D.No 3/344, Velayuthampalayam, Avinashi Tk, Tiruppur Dist.

2.Poovathal (Died) 2. Kannammal W/o. Aruchamy, D.No.1/115, Thandukarampalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur Dt.

3.Baby @ Achiammal W/o. Balasubramaniam, Thatchan Thottam, Authupalayam, Tirumuruganpoondi Post, Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur Dt.

4.Palanisamy S/o. Ramasamy, D.No.195, Velliampudur, Ettiveerampalayam Village, Tiruppur Taluk and Dt.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure to allow the above Second Appeal by setting aside the Judgement and Decree dated 11.08.2025 passed in AS No.74/2021 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur modifying the Judgement and Decree dated 09.08.2019 passed in OS No.118/2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Avinashi.

For Appellant(s): Mr.K. Govi Ganesan

JUDGMENT

Challenging the concurrent finding of the Courts below, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the fourth defendant.

2. The plaintiff is one of the sister of the appellant. The plaintiff along with her sister had filed the suit in O.S.No.118 of 2015 claiming their lawful share in the suit properties. The plaintiffs and the defendants are sisters and brothers. The case of the plaintiffs is that the property originally belonged to their grand father. The plaintiffs’ grand father and his brother have partitioned the property as per the registered partition deed dated 22.05.1941. Thereafter, there was a partition among the plaintiffs and the defendants father and his brothers as per the registered partition deed dated 17.01.1991 and the suit B schedule properties were allotted to the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ father died intestate and the plaintiffs and the defendants are his legal heirs. But the third defendant alone contested the case stating that his father had executed a Will dated 23.4.1998 [Ex.B.2] bequeathing entire suit properties in his favour and thereafter he had constructed a house in the suit property and he claims absolute right in the suit property.

3. As per the Will Ex.B.2, entire suit property has been settled in favour of the fourth defendant. Whereas, the plaintiff had disputed the Will. To prove the Will, two witnesses have been examined one of the attestor of the Will was examined as D.W.3 and during his evidence, he stated that he was not aware of the execution of the Will, but he admitted his signature in the Will. Another attestor of the Will had died and hence, his son was examined as D.W.2. D.W.2 in his evidence has identified the signature of his father in the Will without supporting document to confirm the signature of his deceased father. The Courts below had held that the evidence of D.W.2 is not reliable since no document has been filed to prove the identity of the signature of Govindaraj, who is the second attestor in the Will, thereby holding that genuineness of the will has not been proved, granted preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs.

Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the signature of one of the attestor’s in the Will has been identified by his son and hence, the Will has been proved in the manner known to law and the Courts below erroneously granted preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs, which require interference.

5. A perusal of evidence of D.W.2, it is seen that he has not properly identified his father’s signature in the Will [Ex.B2]. Mere identification of the signature alone is not sufficient to prove the execution of the Will and signature of the attestor has to be verified before the Court by producing contem