A will must meet statutory requirements for validity; parties attesting a document are bound by their knowledge and consent unless proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

G.R. Swaminathan, J.

The plaintiffs in O.S No.81 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Tiruchirappallai are the appellants herein. They filed the said suit for partition of half share in suit “A” and “B” schedule properties, for separate possession and mesne profit.

2.The case of the appellants as set out in the plaint was as follows:-

(i) One Kondichettipatti Kali Gounder died leaving behind his son Natchimuthu. Natchimuthu married Kaliyammal and through the said wedlock, begot two sons namely, Natchimuthu (junior) and Muthusamy. The plaintiffs are the wife and son of Natchimuthu (junior). The defendants 1 to 3 are the wife and sons of Muthusamy. Both Natchimuthu (jr) and Muthusamy had passed away prior to the institution of the suit. The suit B schedule properties had been sold in favour of one Sasikala, wife of the fourth defendant on 17.09.2007 by Muthusamy and his sons (defendants 2 and 3). The said Sasikala had passed away and hence, her legal heirs namely the defendants 4 and 5 had been impleaded.

(ii) Natchimuthu (senior), Natchimuthu (junior) and Muthusamy entered into a partition on 29.12.1962 and divided the ancestral properties among them. The properties were divided into A, B and C schedules. A schedule was allotted to Natchimuthu (senior), B schedule was allotted to Natchimuthu (junior) and C schedule was allotted to Muthsamy. Natchimuthu (senior) had sold some of the items allotted to him in favour of one Arumugam vide sale deed dated 17.02.1988. Subsequently, he passed away intestate. The remaining unsold items of A schedule to the partition deed dated 29.12.1962 devolved in equal measure on his sons, Natchimuthu (junior) and Muthusamy. Natchimuthu (junior) and his brother / Muthusamy jointly purchased certain items of property vide sale deed dated 04.07.1976 along with three others. The said lands were plotted out. Subsequently, the items set out in suit B schedule were purchased by Natchimuthu (junior) and Muthusamy vide sale deed dated 15.03.1984 (Ex.A4). Natchimuthu (junior) died intestate on 02.11.1998. In April 2016, the plaintiffs approached Muthusamy for partitioning the suit A and B schedule properties. Muthusamy informed them that Natchimuthu (junior) had bequeathed the suit schedule properties in his favour vide registered Will dated 02.08.1994 and that based on the same, the suit B schedule properties were sold in favour of the wife of the fourth defendant vide sale deed dated 17.09.2007 and that the second plaintiff / Manimaran had attested the said sale deed after going through its contents. Thereafter, the plaintiffs applied for a certified copy of the Will dated 02.08.1994 and the sale deed dated 17.09.2007. The plaintiffs question the genuineness of the Will dated 02.08.1994. According to them, the said Will was not executed by Natchimuthu (junior). The signature and thumb impression attributed to Natchimuthu (junior) are not that of the alleged executant. The alleged execution of the Will is also surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Muthusamy, who was working as a teacher, had exercised undue influence on Natchimuthu (junior) and had engineered the execution of the Will. The second plaintiff had attested the sale deed dated 17.09.2007 without being aware of the contents of the said document. Muthusamy passed away on 24.02.2017 leaving behind the defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs. Since the defendants 1 to 3 had already declined to partition the properties, the partition suit had to be instituted.

3. The third defendant filed a written state