Judgment :- A.S. No; 676 of 1988 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1986 passed in O.S.No: 3 of 1983 by the first defendant therein and Transfer A.S.No; 754 of 1992 is preferred against the judgment and decree dt. 7.4.86 passed in O.S. No: 23 of 1983 both by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram. 2. The plaint allegations in O.S. No: 3 of 1983 are as follows: 'A' Schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Nachimuthu Gounder and his three sons namely Periasami Gounder, Rangasami Gounder and Laxmana Gounder; that while Nachimuthu Gounder died long ago and his second son Rangasami Gounder died 50 years ago without issue; and therefore, the "A" schedule properties were inherited by Periasamy Gounder and Laxmana Gounder by survivorship; that Periasamy Gounder was acting as manager of the joint family; that while in management, he acquired some properties in his name for and on behalf of the joint family from and out of the income derived from the joint family properties; that the plaintiff and the first defendant are the sons of Laxmana Gounder; that Periasamy Gounder had no issues; that in or about 1962 Periasamy Gounder effected a family arrangement whereby the "A" Schedule properties to the plaint an heads of cattle were allotted to the plaintiff and the first defendant to be enjoyed by them in equal moieties; that it was understood that the plaintiff and the first defendant should effect permanent partition in equal moieties after the lifetime of Periasamy Gounder and Laxmana Gounder and plaintiff should maintain Periasamy Gounder and the first defendant should maintain Laxmana Gounder; that Laxmana gounder predeceased Periasami Gounder and Periasamy Gounder died in January 1995; that when Periasami Gounder was in unsound state of mind, the first defendant appeared to have fraudulently acquired a Will in his favour; that in O.S. No: 1 of 1976, on the file of the Court of District Munsif, the genuineness and the validity of the Will were questioned by the plaintiff, as there was no necessity for Periasamy gounder to execute any Will at all; that the alleged Will dated 17.1.1975 is a bogus one brought about by the plaintiff to deprive the first defendant of his legitimate right in 'A' Schedule properties. 3. 3. The further averments of the plaint are that one Chinnasamy Gounder had two wives Angaiammal and Nachiammal who are the aunt and sisters of the plaintiff and the first defendant; that the said Chinnasamy Gounder bequeathed an undivided half share in the properties belonging to him and his brother in favour of his two wives under a registered Will dt. 29.8.1947; that after his death, his two wives became entitled to half share each; that on 27.6.1949, the two wives were allotted separate properties as their own; that Angaiammal and Nachiammal executed a will bequeathing their respective shares in the properties in favour of the plaintiff and the first defendant; that Angaiammal died on 19.12.1959 and the common half share belonging to Angaiammal is given in the "B" Schedule and the plaintiff and the first defendant are each entitled to 1/4th share in those properties; that the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 in their individual right conveyed their respective shares in some of the properties under the Will by a sale deed dated 17.9.1964 and the remaining properties are described in "B" Schedule and they are enjoyed by the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 in common; that the "A" and "B" Schedule properties are enjoyed by the parties for convenience and enjoyment without any permanent partition and hence the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition directing the division of items 1 to 6 and 8 into four equal shares and item 1 to 6 and 7 of 'B' schedule into 4 equal shares and item 6 into 32 equal shares by metes and bounds with reference to good and bad soil and allot one such share in all items to plaintiff and he be put in possession of the same and for costs. 4. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, he has denied the allegations that Periasamy Gounder and Laxmana gounder were in a joint family but would state that they were enjoying their properties separately. 4. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, he has denied the allegations that Periasamy Gounder and Laxmana gounder were in a joint family but would state that they were enjoying their properties separately. This defendant would further state that Periasamy gounder purchased the properties only from and out of his own exertion of earnings and as such those properties are his self-acquired properties; that he would also deny the oral partition between them; that since Periasamy Gounder gave away his rights in 1962 itself, there was no necessity for the first defendant to get any Will at all and the Will is not a genuine one. This defendant would also deny the execution of the Will dt. 17.1.1975. He has also states that the Will was not at all given effect to. He would also deny all other allegations as well as the institution of the suit O.S. No: 16/1976 and he would further submit that the said suit was decided in favour of the first defendant. He further submitted that in the "B" Schedule in item Nos: 1 to 4 Lakshmanasami Gounder and Periasami Gounder had equal shares and in the 7th item both of them had 1/4th share and in item Nos: 5 and 6 Periasamy Gounder had the full right. On such averments, the first defendant would pray for a decree in his favour and also for dismissal of the plaintiff's suit with costs. 5. The second defendant in his separate written statement has adopted the written statement of the first defendant. Based on the pleadings by parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court in this suit:- 1. Whether the 'A' Schedule properties are joint family properties belonging to Periasamy Gounder and Laxmana gounder? 2. Whether the family arrangement as alleged by the plaintiff is true? 3. Whether the Will dt. 17.1.1955 executed by Periasamy Gounder is true, valid and executable? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and possession in respect of "A" Schedule properties? If so, the items and the number of shares he is eligible to? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and possession in respect of "B" Schedule properties ? 6. To what relief the parties are entitled to? Additional issues : 1. Whether the second defendant is an unnecessary party to the plaintiff ? 2. If so, the items and the number of shares he is eligible to? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and possession in respect of "B" Schedule properties ? 6. To what relief the parties are entitled to? Additional issues : 1. Whether the second defendant is an unnecessary party to the plaintiff ? 2. Whether the Will executed by Angaiammal and Nachiammal is true? 3. Whether the 'B' Schedule property is enjoyed by the plaintiff, the first defendant and the second defendant as a common property? 6. In O.S. No: 23 of 1993 the first defendant in the earlier suit would file this suit praying for declaration that as per the Will dt. 17.1.1995, in item Nos: 1 to 4 he is entitled to 9/18 shares, in item Nos: 6 – 9/36 shares, the entire 6th item, the entire house property in the 7th item and for partition and separate possession thereof. 7. The plaint allegations are as follows : The plaint 'A' schedule properties belong to the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3, plaintiff and the first defendant being brothers, the second defendant being their sister and the third defendant being the owner of the half share in S.No; 94 property. 8. 7. The plaint allegations are as follows : The plaint 'A' schedule properties belong to the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3, plaintiff and the first defendant being brothers, the second defendant being their sister and the third defendant being the owner of the half share in S.No; 94 property. 8. The further case of the plaintiff in this suit is that on 17.1.1995, Periasami Gounder executed a Will in favour of the Laxmana gounder father of the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of "A" Schedule properties, half share in items 1 to 4 in 'A' Schedule, 1 and 1/4 share in the 5th item, entire 6th item and the entire house property in 7th item in favour of the plaintiff who is his brother's son on the ground that he has no issues; that this is a registered Will; that Periasamy gounder died in the second week of February 1975; that thereafter the plaintiff took possession of those properties and is in enjoyment thereof; that in the 'A' Schedule items 1 to 4 in respect of the house share of Laxmana Gounder, on his death, plaintiff took 4/18 shares, that the first defendant took 4/18 shares and the daughter the second defendant was given 1/18 share in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act and they are in enjoyment thereof; that the properties enjoyed by the plaintiff are scheduled as "B" Schedule; that he has also obtained patta in respect of those properties since their sister, the second defendant did not take steps to take separate possession of her properties; that the plaintiff and the first defendant are also enjoying those properties belonging to the second defendant; that on account of misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the first defendant had been giving pintricks to the plaintiff in respect of his enjoyment of the properties. On such pleadings, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief extracted supra. 9. The first defendant in his written statement would submit that Periasami gounder was the head of the family till 20 years back and Periasamy Gounder gave away half share to the plaintiff and the first defendant and he was living with Laxmana Gounder and the first defendant till his death. The first defendant would deny the execution of the Will dt. 17.1.1975. The first defendant would deny the execution of the Will dt. 17.1.1975. He would further submit that since Periasamy Gounder had given away his rights in the properties to the plaintiff and the first defendant about 20 years back he had no rights thereafter as such there was no necessity for him to execute any Will at all. It is not true to say that the plaintiff is enjoying the entire "B" Schedule properties. Plaintiff and the first defendant have spent equally for the purchase of an oil engine that is mentioned in the Will in Survey No: 140. On such pleadings, the first defendant would pray for division of 'A' Schedule properties into two equal parts and to allot one portion to the first defendant and dismiss the suit with costs. 10. Defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte. 11. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether what is stated in para 3 of the written statement filed by the defendant about the oral surrender is true and binding on the plaintiff ? 2. Whether the paternal uncle of the plaintiff and the defendants was the rightful owner of the property on the date of his death? 3. Whether the Will dt. 12.1.1975 executed in favour of the plaintiff is true and acceptable ? 4. Whether what is stated in para 5 of the written statement filed by the defendant about the oral division is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff ? 5. Is the second defendant entitled to the suit properties? 6. Whether as claimed in the written statement, for second defendant's properties the first defendant has got possession by way of adverse possession? 7. To what relief the parties are entitled to ? 12. 5. Is the second defendant entitled to the suit properties? 6. Whether as claimed in the written statement, for second defendant's properties the first defendant has got possession by way of adverse possession? 7. To what relief the parties are entitled to ? 12. The Trial Court in consideration of these facts and circumstances and on evidence let in and appreciating the same would grant a decree in O.S.No.3 of 1983 declaring that in the "B" Schedule property of the deceased Angaiammal, D.W.1 had half share i.e. 1/4th share and the first defendant had 1/4th share and they are entitled to get separate possession thereof and decreed the suit accordingly and in O.S. No: 23 of 1983 the plaintiff therein is not entitled to get declaration or permanent injunction on the basis of the Will and since the 'A' Schedule properties in O.S. No: 3/1983 are the same properties in this suit also they are entitled to a decree as stated above and decreed the suit accordingly. Hence, these two appeals. 13. The judgment and decree passed by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, the trial Court dated 7.4.1986 are under challenge. 14. During arguments, both the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents would only trace the facts and circumstances as pleaded by parties before the lower Court and the evidence projected therein further reciting certain relevant paragraphs from the judgment without bringing out any new facts or circumstances nor any law on the subject. The learned counsel for the appellant on a overall study of the appeal suits would put in a nutshell that nowhere it is stated that the Will is fabricated or forged, and so far as the Will is concerned, it is the registration that is doubted and would ultimately, pray for allowing the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the lower Court. 15. In consideration of the facts pleaded by the parties, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that O.S.No.3 of 1983 has been filed by the first respondent in both the above appeals as against the appellant and four others. O.S.No.23 of 1983 has been filed by the appellant as against the first respondent herein and two others, who are the second and third defendants in both the suits. 16. O.S.No.23 of 1983 has been filed by the appellant as against the first respondent herein and two others, who are the second and third defendants in both the suits. 16. O.S.No.3 of 1983 has been filed praying for a partition of the suit properties 1 to 6 and 8 and dividing the same into four equal shares by metes and bounds, of which allotting one share in favour of the plaintiff and further dividing the items 1 to 6 and 7 of the ‘B’ schedule properties into four equal shares and allotting one such divided share in favour of the plaintiff and dividing item 6 into 32 equal shares and allotting one such divided share in favour of the plaintiff and putting him in independent possession of such allotted shares and for costs. So far as the second suit in O.S.No.23 of 1983 is concerned, the prayer therein is for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to 9/18 shares in items No.1 to 4 of the suit properties, 9/36 shares in the 5th item of the suit properties, the 6th item as a whole and the house shown as the 7th item and further praying for a partition of the ‘A’ schedule suit properties into 18 shares and allotting 13 of such divided shares and further dividing the 5th item into 36 shares and allotting 13 such divided shares and further putting the plaintiff in possession of those shares and for costs. 17. In the joint trial held in both the cases, on the part of the plaintiff in O.S.No.3 of 1983 five witnesses would be examined of whom the plaintiff as D.W.1, the third defendant as D.W.2, one Thangaraj as D.W.3, the second defendant as D.W.4 and the fifth defendant as D.W.5. Besides these oral evidence, 58 documents has also been marked as Exs.B1 to B.58. Ex.B1 dated 7.2.1978 is a deposition in O.S. No.16 of 1976. Ex.B2 dated 7.2.1978 is the deposition at page No.7. Ex.B3 dated 13.2.1978 is the deposition of the PW.2. Ex.B4 is the original sale deed dated 17.12.1947. Ex.B5 is the quotation for oil engine dated 29.11.1973. Ex.B6 is the death certificate of Periasamy Gounder dated 17.2.1982. Ex.B7 dated 17.5.1982 is the chitta extract. Ex.B8 dated 10.1.1980 is another chitta extract. Ex.B9 dated 10.1.1980 is yet another chitta extract. Exs.B10 and B11 are respectively the patta Nos.59 and 149. Ex.B4 is the original sale deed dated 17.12.1947. Ex.B5 is the quotation for oil engine dated 29.11.1973. Ex.B6 is the death certificate of Periasamy Gounder dated 17.2.1982. Ex.B7 dated 17.5.1982 is the chitta extract. Ex.B8 dated 10.1.1980 is another chitta extract. Ex.B9 dated 10.1.1980 is yet another chitta extract. Exs.B10 and B11 are respectively the patta Nos.59 and 149. Exs.B12 to B15 are the Adangal extract for faslis 1381 to 1384. Exs.B16 and B17 are the affidavit and counter in O.S.No.16 of 1976. Ex.B18 is the decree copy. Exs.B19 to B23 are the kist receipts for different faslis. Exs.B24 and B25 are the property tax receipts. Ex.B26 is the voters identity card. Ex.B27 dated 29.8.1947 is a copy of the Will. Ex.B28 is the copy of partition deed dated 28.6.1949. Ex.B29 is the death certificate on the death of Angaiyammal on 9.12.1959. Ex.B30 is the copy of sale deed dated 17.9.1964. Ex.B31 is the judgment copy dated 24.2.1978 in O.S.No.16 of 1976. Exs.B32 and B33 are respectively the report and sketch of the Advocate Commissioner. Ex.B34 is the notice dated 19.12.1985. Ex.B35 is the reply to Ex.B34. Ex.B36 is a book No.3 Volume 9 of the Sub-Registrar. Ex.B37 is the Will entered in Ex.B36 at pages Nos.111 and 112. Ex.B38 is the mortgage deed. Ex.B39 is yet another mortgage deed. Exs.B40 to B58 are the electricity receipts for different months from 15.7.1977 to 15.11.1977. 18. Likewise on the part of the plaintiff in O.S.23 of 1983, the said plaintiff, besides examining himself as P.W.1, would also examine three more witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4 and the only document marked on his side is Ex.A1 dated 17.1.1975, the Will said to have been executed by Periasamy Gounder in favour of this plaintiff and none-else. 19. 18. Likewise on the part of the plaintiff in O.S.23 of 1983, the said plaintiff, besides examining himself as P.W.1, would also examine three more witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4 and the only document marked on his side is Ex.A1 dated 17.1.1975, the Will said to have been executed by Periasamy Gounder in favour of this plaintiff and none-else. 19. The trial Court having extracted the facts and circumstances pleaded by the parties and framing the issues based on the said pleadings, in the manner as aforementioned and having let the parties to adduce evidence based on the issues framed and recording the same both oral and documentary and further having its own discussions and thus appreciating the evidence, would ultimately dismiss the suit in O.S.No.23 of 1983 on the ground that the plaintiff therein is not entitled to seek for a declaration and permanent injunction based on the Will dated 17.1.1975, thus answering issue No.7 as to what are the reliefs the parties are entitled to in the said suit and further holding that since the suit properties in O.S.No.23 of 1983 and ‘A’ schedule properties in O.s.No.3 of 1983 being one and the same both the plaintiff in O.S.No.3 of 1983 and O.S.No.23 of 1983 are entitled to each half share in the said properties and declaring the same and further passing a preliminary decree to the effect of putting them in separate possession of the same and ordering the parties to bear with their own costs and thus deciding O.S.No.23 of 1983 in the said manner. 20. So far as the other suit in O.S.No.3 of 1983 is concerned, while answering issue No.6 in ‘B’ schedule properties therein from out of the half share belonging to the deceased Angaiyammal, the trial Court held that the plaintiff and the first defendant are each entitled to half share i.e. each entitled to one fourth share of the whole property in ‘B’ schedule and to divide the same by metes and bounds and to be put in possession of the said shares and further to bear their own respective costs, thus passing a decree to the said effect and thus deciding this suit also in this manner. 21. 21. So far as the evidence adduced by parties are concerned, PW.1 in O.S.No.23 of 1983 would heavily rely on and speak to the Will dated 17.1.1975 and to divide the suit properties in accordance with the shares mentioned therein. ‘A’ schedule of the suit in O.S.No.3 of 1983 being the joint family properties, there is no denial of the fact that it was commonly belonging to Nachimuthu Gounder and his three sons and that Nachimuthu Gounder died long back and also there is no dispute regarding the death of the second son Rangasamy Gounder, fifty years back and after his death, the other two brothers have succeeded the entire family properties by survivorship and some properties have been purchased by Periyasamy in his name from out of the income of the joint family properties. It is the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.3 of 1983 that since Periyasamy Gounder did not have any successor, he treated Lakshmana Gounder's sons as his own children and therefore in the revenue records, his name has been entered into for the whole properties besides remitting the kist in his own name. Since both have become aged, there was no partition among themselves and they both were living together jointly enjoying the properties. 22. On the other hand, the plaintiff in O.S.No.23 of 1983 would plead that the brothers Periyasamy Gounder and Lakshmana Gounder were living separately dividing the suit properties among themselves and it is not correct to say that himself and the first defendant were enjoying the properties dividing the same into half among themselves. But Periyasamy Gounder regarding his half share in the properties executed Ex.A1 will dated 17.1.1975 in his favour and that the first defendant therein had no right in any manner so far as that portion of the properties are concerned. The plaintiff also in his evidence would say that since Periyasamy Gounder was issueless, he executed Ex.A1 Will in his favour and that in ‘A’ Schedule properties mentioned therein under item Nos.1 to 4 half share and in item No.5 one fourth share and in item Nos.6 and 7 as a whole are the subject matters of the Will which have been bequeathed in his favour and on 2.2.1975 Periyasamy Gounder had died and the Will came to effect. This witness has further deposed to the effect that Ex.A1 Will dated 17.1.1975 was executed at his residence making the Sub-Registrar come over there and that the Will was scribed by PW.2 and PW.3 and yet another attested the Will and that PW.4 registered it at his residence. This witness would also depose to the effect that though Periyasamy Gounder was not keeping good health, he was in a clear disposing state of mind; that only after everyone had signed it, PW.4 executed the Will; that the suit properties were described in the Will by PW.3 as per Karnam book and looking into the revenue records; that at the time of executing the Will, Periyasamy Gounder would be in between 80 and 85 years of age. 23. PW.3 would depose to the effect that he knew Periyasamy Gounder and that he only scribed Ex.A1 Will dated 17.1.1975; that at the instance of the plaintiff, he went to his residence at 10.30 a.m. that day; that the Sub-Registrar and PW.4 were also there and since Periyasamy Gounder told him to write the Will in favour of his younger brother's son, the plaintiff, he wrote the Will and read out the contents of the same to him; that the thumb impression was fixed at two places; and that PW.3 and one another Periyasamy Gounder attested the document followed by himself signing the same as scribed. 24. PW.3 would also adduce evidence to the effect that he signed Ex.A1 Will and he would also identify the said document. PW.4 the Sub-Registrar in his evidence would adduce that on 17.1.1975 the document had been registered based on an application sent by the executant to the Will. He would also explain the procedures that are being adopted during the time that the registration is being done. He would further adduce evidence to the effect that himself and his Office Assistant went to Veerachozhapuram, Reddivelasu, Door No.3/63 and he saw Periyasamy Gounder and since he was not keeping good health, he was not able to come to the Office and he obtained thumb impression of Periyasamy Gounder in Ex.A1; that it was Periyasamy Gounder who handed over Ex.A1 and that he was alright at that time and that he registered the document as required by law. 25. 25. On the contrary, DW.1 would stoutly deny the genuineness of Ex.A1 and the manner in which it was executed and registered. His contentions are that even six months prior to the execution of the said Will, Periyasamy Gounder was seriously bed ridden, losing the eye sight and without being able to do anything by himself and therefore it was utterly false on the part of the other side to come forward to say that Ex.A1 Will was executed and registered in the manner alleged; that the burden is heavily on the plaintiff to establish the execution and registration of the Will in an unambiguous manner and without leaving any suspicion to occur. 26. Having regard to the above oral evidence adduced on the part of these important key witnesses since in a case of such nature, the vital question that has to be decided is the interlude of the Will. Since there is no dispute regarding the manner in which most of the events have taken place in the family pertaining to the inheritance and the nature of the property etc., once, the genuineness of the Will is decided it would become very easy to solve the question and therefore even the trial Court would much focus its attention on minute details of the said Will coming into existence and getting it registered. Assessing the artificial manner in which between 10 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. the document is said to have been registered as per the evidence of PW.4 and also PW.1 coming forward to say that it was done between 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. and that it had been reduced into writing by PW.2 and that they left the place before lunch, the trial Court would find the other evidence adduced by PW.1 are not convincing on the above goal so as to rely on the story of the plaintiff/appellant since it has been very strongly suggested that based on the admission of PW.1 that till the death of Periyasamy Gounder and to his father Lakshmana Gounder, it was himself and the first defendant who were providing with food and everything that in a case registered against his senior paternal uncle. PW.1 would admit that he only conducted the case and that getting the signatures and thumb impressions of Periyasamy Goudner in empty papers handing them over to the Advocate and registered and typing the contents therein and likewise in many such empty papers such signatures and thumb impressions were obtained, have been very clearly been admitted of his part in the cross-examination and therefore great suspicion had been entertained by the lower Court, for manipulation of the signature and thumb impressions of late Periyasamy Gounder by the plaintiff in O.S.23 of 1983. Further more the age of the executant even according to the plaintiff being 80 to 85 years and according to the first defendant and PW.3's evidence he was more than 90 years old and he was bed ridden, having lost the eye sight and in a state of oblivion. Further more it comes to be known that Periyasamy Gounder had never entertained the thought to execute any Will but always he expressed the desire that both the plaintiffs should share the property equally and that there are many inconsistencies that are found in the document Ex.A1. 27. The overall consideration of all these evidence adduced by the parties would only belie not only the case put up by the plaintiff in O.S.No.23 of 1983 but also the execution of Ex.A1 Will and registration of the same in the manner in which it is alleged. Moreover excepting Ex.A1 no other document has been marked on the part of the plaintiff to indicate anything in the suit. But on the contrary, all the relevant documents have been marked by the other side and therefore the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.23 of 1983 has not been proved with preponderance of probabilities since it is the standard of proof expected for the proof of a civil case in civil juris prudence. Particularly, regarding the execution and registration of Ex.A1 Will, the same has not been proved in the manner held by the legal prepositions, especially in view of the fact that the burden of proof of such Will is heavily on the person who comes forward to allege the execution of the said Will and registration of the same. Particularly, regarding the execution and registration of Ex.A1 Will, the same has not been proved in the manner held by the legal prepositions, especially in view of the fact that the burden of proof of such Will is heavily on the person who comes forward to allege the execution of the said Will and registration of the same. The evidence let in on the part of the plaintiff in O.S.No.23 of 1983 is inconsistent and not to the expectations of law and therefore based on the admitted facts that the properties were ancestral belonging to both Periyasamy Gounder and Lakshmana Gounder and that they have been living as one and the same family without any division of the properties among themselves. Even though some of the properties have been purchased in the name of Periyasamy Gounder, still considering that they were the family properties in common in between the brothers and therefore it is only proper to decide based on the admitted facts and proofs available rather than relying on the sole document Ex.A1 Will said to have been executed and registered on 17.1.1975 is totally unreliable. Neither the facts nor the circumstances nor the evidence adduced by Pws.1 to 4 would come to the rescue of the plaintiff in proof of Ex.A1. On the contrary, the set up of Ex.A1 Will has been very easily demolished by the other side and hence the trial Court was able to arrive at easy conclusions to hold discrediting the Will, its execution and registration, particularly, since the plaintiff in the said suit has miserably failed to prove the execution and registration in the manner required by law, stating hereby that the Will was not true nor valid nor binding on the other side. Since this major dispute is solved, the trial Court was further able to settle the other issues, dividing the properties into equal moieties as it has been done so far as the suit properties are concerned with both the above suits. 28. Since this major dispute is solved, the trial Court was further able to settle the other issues, dividing the properties into equal moieties as it has been done so far as the suit properties are concerned with both the above suits. 28. The trial Court has not only traced the pleadings by parties very carefully without missing any valid point but also has framed proper issues in both the above suits allowing parties to record their evidence, thus giving full opportunities for them to let in, evidence and based on those evidence let in, appreciating the same in the manner expected by law valid conclusions have been arrived at by the trial Court as extracted supra. 29. There is no legal inconsistencies or infirmities or lacuna or laxity or even denial of opportunity or perversity in approach in the manner the trial Court has dealt with the subject matters concerned with both the above suits so as to call for interference of this Court to be made into the well considered and merited judgments passed, in the common judgment and decree. In result, both the above appeal suits fail and they are dismissed. The common judgment and decree dated 7.4.1986 rendered in O.S.No.3 of 1983 and O.S.No.23 of 1983 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, is hereby confirmed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected CMP No.5033 of 1991 is also dismissed.

Subbaraya Gounder v. Palanisami Gounder and Others