A registered Will does not automatically guarantee validity; the propounder must prove its due execution and satisfy the court's conscience by removing all suspicious circumstances. Mere registration cannot substitute mandatory statutory proof of attestation and execution, especially when the document is challenged.

.JUDGMENT

1.The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.84 of 2018 dated 05.08.2022 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Palani, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.249 of 2013 dated 05.03.2018 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff. She filed the suit in O.S.No.249 of 2013 before the District Munsif Court, Palani, claiming the relief of declaration that the suit properties are belonging to her and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit properties.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the trial Court.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The suit properties and certain other properties originally belonged to one Muthammal, mother of the first defendant and the grandmother of the plaintiff and the second defendant. The said Muthammal executed a registered Will dated 15.04.1977 while in a sound disposing state of mind, in respect of the suit properties and her other properties, whereby she bequeathed the 'A' schedule properties to the first defendant and the 'B' schedule properties to the plaintiff.

Subsequently, Muthammal sold the 3^rd item of the properties, leaving out the suit properties comprised in the 'B' schedule under the Will dated 15.04.1977.

(b) After the death of the said Muthammal on 28.10.1985, the said Will came into force and the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit properties. But the defendants claiming rights over the suit properties, attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and also attempted to encumber the same. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit seeking the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction.

5. The defence of the defendants 1 to 3, in brief, is as follows:

(a) It is true that the said Muthammal executed a registered Will dated 15.04.1977. But since she subsequently sold certain properties covered under the said Will through three sale deeds, it is false to contend that the above Will came into force. During her life time, the said Muthammal executed another Will dated 12.03.1984, whereunder, she bequeathed a life-estate in favour of her daughter, the first defendant, with the remainder vested in her grandson, the second defendant. The said Muthammal cancelled her first Will dated 15.04.1977 by her second Will dated 12.03.1984. The plaintiff and her husband were fully aware of the later Will of the said Muthammal.

(b) After the death of the said Muthammal on 28.10.1985, the Will dated 12.03.1984 came into effect and the suit properties came into the possession of the first defendant. Subsequently, the first defendant executed a release deed dated 26.08.2013 and in pursuance of the same, the second defendant, son of the first defendant became absolutely also though entitled to the suit properties. The properties are in the possession and enjoyment of the second defendant. The seco