The propounder of a Will bears the burden of proof, ensuring valid execution, while the court must evaluate suspicious circumstances surrounding such documents based on established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

The second appeal has been filed against the the judgment and decree in AS No.38 of 2006 dated 02.07.2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur reversing the judgment and decree passed in OS No.2 of 2002 dated 05.01.2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Pattukottai.

2. The defendants 2,4 and 9 are the appellants in the second appeal.

3. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that the suit property originally belonged to one Manickam Chettiyar. He had two sons, viz., Kandasamy Chettiyar and Sambamoorthy Chettiyar. He settled the property in favour of his sons through a registered settlement deed dated 18.12.1901. The suit property was described as 'C' schedule first item in the settlement deed. The said Sambamoorthy Chettiyar died as a bachelor. Ultimately, one Kamalathammal inherited the property through her mother Packiyathammal, who is the wife of Kandasamy Chettiyar. The further case of the plaintiff is that during her life time Kamalathammal executed a Will (Ex.A2) in favour of the plaintiff, 3^rd defendant, one Krishnamoorthy and the first and second defendants. The said Will came into effect on the death of the said Kamalathammal. It is further stated in the plaint that other sharers namely Sundarambal, Krishnamoorthy and Saminathan relinquished their shares through registered release deeds dated 17.03.1994 and 25.05.1994 respectively for valuable consideration. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant alone did not surrender her share to the plaintiff. Accordingly the plaintiff claimed for four shares in the suit property and second defendant was entitled for one share. Since the second defendant was not amenable for partition, the present suit came to be filed seeking for the relief of partition, division and allotment of 4/5^th share in the suit property.

4. The second defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the 4^th and 9^th defendants. They took a stand that the said Kamalathammal had not executed any Will in favour of the plaintiff and her children and that the said Will is not true, valid and binding on the defendants. They also denied the release deeds that were executed by other sharers. Consequently these defendants took a very specific stand that the plaintiff is not entitled for 4/5^th share in the suit property.

5. The stand taken by these defendants is that the 9^th defendant married one Saroja and after her demise, he married the second defendant and since no Sreedhana was given during the marriage, Kamalathammal, executed a Will dated 15.12.1980 (Ex.B1) and bequeathed the suit property in favour of the second defendant. Thereafter the second defendant was enjoying the property absolutely. This Will was already marked in a suit filed in OS No.416/1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai and it was marked as Ex.B13 and that the plaintiff, first defendant, third defendant and 5^th defendant were also parties in the said suit. Since the second defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, patta was also granted in her favour. Accordingly these defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit.

6. The plaintiff examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Ex.A1 to A4. Defendants 2,4 and 9 examined DW1 to DW4 and marked Ex.B1 to B31.

7. The trial Court, on considering the pleadings, facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence, came to a conclusion that the Will that was relied upon by the plaintiff is not valid and has not been proved in the manner known to law and therefore, the suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 05.01.2006