Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 3423 (MAD)

N. Radhabai v. Maruthambal

2011-07-26

A.SELVAM

body2011
JUDGMENT :- 1. This Appeal Suit and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal have been directed against the Judgment passed in Original Suit No.101 of 2005 and order passed in Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 by the First Additional District Court, Tiruchirapalli. 2. The respondents in Appeal Suit No.176 of 2010 as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.101 of 2005 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and also for past damages at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem, wherein the present appellants have been shown as defendants. 3. The respondent in CMA No.531 of 2011 as petitioner has filed Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 on the file of the trial Court praying to issue legal heir certificate in her favour, wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole respondent. 4. The nubble of the plaint filed in Original Suit No.101 of 2005 can be stated like thus: The plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons of first plaintiff. The first defendant is the wife of Nagarajan. The second defendant is the wife of Chandrasekaran. The third defendant is the son of second defendant. The deceased Nagarajan and Chandrasekaran are the brothers of fourth defendant. The brother of the first plaintiff by name Appavoo Pillai in his sound disposing state of mind has executed his last Will dated 31.05.2000 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties and the same has been duly attested and registered and he passed away on 13.11.2004. Since he passed away on 13.11.2004 the Will dated 31.05.2000 has come into effect and thus, the plaintiffs have become absolute owners of the suit properties. The husbands of the defendants 1 and 2, and forth defendant are the sons of Ammathanathammal who is one of the sisters of Appavoo Pillai. Since she lost her husband, Appavoo Pillai has permitted her to live in his house. In the year 1998 a dispute has become emerged amongst Appavoo Pillai and family members of the defendants, which resulted filing of Original Suit No.600 of 1998 by the husband of the second defendant by name Chandrasekaran and the same has been dismissed on 20.09.1999. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, Appeal Suit No.177 of 1999 has been filed on the file of the Second Additional sub Court, Tiruchirapalli and the same has also been dismissed. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, Appeal Suit No.177 of 1999 has been filed on the file of the Second Additional sub Court, Tiruchirapalli and the same has also been dismissed. Even during life time of Appavoo Pillai, the first plaintiff has lived in a portion of the suit properties. After the demise of Appavoo Pillai, the plaintiffs have issued a legal notice to the defendants and thereby called upon to vacate the suit properties. But the defendants have given a false reply notice. As per order passed in I.A.No.650 of 2006, the fifth defendant has been impleaded and he claimed title to the suit properties by virtue of the Will dated 25.08.2004 alleged to have been executed by the original owner of the suit properties viz. Appavoo Pillai in his favour. The Will dated 25.08.2004 is nothing but a forged one and the same does not create any interest in favour of the fifth defendant. Under the said circumstances the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint. 5. In the written statement filed on the side of the third defendant it is averred that one Aynan Pillai has passed away leaving behind him his four daughters namely Seetha Ammal, Ammathanathammal, Marudambal and Janaki Ammal and two sons viz., Duraisamy and Appavoo. The said Appavoo has shown affection towards Ammathanathammal and her children and subsequently a flimsy misunderstanding has arisen which resulted in filing Original Suit No.600 of 1998 and the same has been dismissed and against the Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.600 of 1998, Appeal Suit No.177 of 1999 has been preferred and the same has also been dismissed. During life time of Appavoo Pillai he has not instituted any suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties. It is false to say that he executed his last Will dated 31.05.2000 as stated in the plaint. The plaintiffs are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the plaint and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. The material averments made in the written statement filed by the fifth defendant can be stated like thus: It is true that the original owners of the suit properties viz., Appavoo Pillai has passed away as a bachelor on 13.11.2004. 6. The material averments made in the written statement filed by the fifth defendant can be stated like thus: It is true that the original owners of the suit properties viz., Appavoo Pillai has passed away as a bachelor on 13.11.2004. Out of his own volition and also in a sound disposing state of mind he executed a Will dated 25.08.2004 in favour of the fifth defendant. He cancelled the earlier Wills executed by him. The plaintiffs have insisted him to execute the Will dated 31.05.2000 and subsequently it has been registered in the Sub Registrar's Office, Woraiyur, Tiruchirapalli. By way of executing the Will dated 25.08.2004, the said Appavoo Pillai has cancelled the Will dated 31.05.2000. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit properties, whereas the fifth defendant is having right, title and interest over the same and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. In the reply statement filed on the side of the fourth plaintiff it is stated that the original owner of the suit properties viz. Appavoo Pillai has not executed any Will in favour of the fifth defendant and the alleged Will is nothing but a forged one. Under the said circumstances the suit may be decreed as prayed for. 8. In Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 it is averred that the brother of the petitioner viz. Appavoo Pillai has instituted Original Suit No.82 of 1968 against his elder brother by name Duraisamy Pillai for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of his share, wherein a decree of partition has been granted. The said Appavoo Pillai has executed a Will dated 31.05.2000 in favour of the petitioner and her sons, wherein he bequeathed of his both immovable and movable properties in their favour and he passed away on 13.11.2004. Since the respondent has made a rival claim, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. 9. In the counter filed on the side of the respondent it is stated that it is true that the deceased Appavoo Pillai has instituted Original Suit No.82 of 1968 for the relief of partition and the same has been decreed and he enjoyed the properties allotted to his share. 9. In the counter filed on the side of the respondent it is stated that it is true that the deceased Appavoo Pillai has instituted Original Suit No.82 of 1968 for the relief of partition and the same has been decreed and he enjoyed the properties allotted to his share. Only at the instigation of the petitioner and her sons, he executed the Will dated 31.05.2000 and subsequently cancelled the same and executed another Will on 25.08.2004 in favour of the respondent, wherein he bequeathed his both movable and immovable properties in his favour and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 10. On the basis of the rival pleadings put forth on either side, both in Original Suit No.101 of 2005 and in Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007, the trial Court has framed necessary issues as well as necessary points and after considering the rival evidence adduced on either side, has decreed Original Suit No.101 of 2005 as prayed for and allowed Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007. Against the Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.101 of 2005, Appeal Suit No.176 of 2010 and against the order passed in Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 CMA (MD) No.531 of 2011 have been preferred on the file of this Court. 11. Before contemplating the rival submissions made on either side, the court has to narrate the relationship between the parties and also previous Wills alleged to have been executed by the original owner of the suit properties viz. Appavoo Pillai. One Ayinan Pillai has had two sons namely Duraisamy Pillai, Appavoo Pillai and four daughters namely Seetha Ammal, Ammathanathammal, Maruthambal and Janaki. The defendants 1 to 4 are the family members of Ammathanathammal. The fifth defendant is the only son of Durai Sami Pillai. 12. It is an admitted fact that the said Appavoo Pillai has instituted Original Suit No.82 of 1968 against his brother by name Duraisami Pillai for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of his share, wherein a decree of partition has been granted and in pursuance of the same, the suit properties have been allotted to his share. It is also equally an admitted fact that Appavoo Pillai has passed away as a bachelor. It is also equally an admitted fact that Appavoo Pillai has passed away as a bachelor. The admitted facts of both parties are that the said Appavoo Pillai has executed the Wills dated 29.10.1974, 02.07.1993 and 23.07.1997 and subsequently cancelled all the Wills mentioned supra. 13. The plaintiffs in Original Suit No.101 of 2005 as well as the petitioner in Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 have claimed their right over the suit properties by virtue of the Will dated 31.05.2000. 14. The fifth defendant in Original Suit No.101 of 2005 and sole respondent in Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 has claimed his right by virtue of the Will dated 25.08.2004 alleged to have been executed by the said Appavoo Pillai in his favour. 15. The trial Court has accepted the Will dated 31.05.2000 and rejected the Will dated 25.08.2004. Under the said circumstances the following aspects have become emerged for consideration: (a) Whether the deceased Appavoo Pillai has executed the Will dated 31.05.2000 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties? (b) Whether the deceased Appavoo Pillai has executed the Will dated 25.08.2004 in favour of the fifth defendant in respect of the suit properties? 16. Even though on the side of the plaintiffs and defendants various documents have been exhibited, in the instant case, the vital documents are the Wills dated 31.05.2000 and 25.08.2004 alleged to have been executed by the original owner of the suit properties viz. Appavoo Pillai in favour of the plaintiffs and also in favour of the fifth defendant respectively. 17. In the plaint it has been clinchingly averred that the suit properties are the absolute properties of the deceased Appavoo Pillai and he voluntarily and also in a sound disposing state of mind executed the Will dated 31.05.2000 in favour of the plaintiffs and thus, the plaintiffs have become absolute owners of the same. 18. In the written statement filed on the side of the third defendant, a flimsy denial has been made to the effect that the original owner of the suit properties has not executed the Will dated 31.05.2000 in favour of the plaintiffs. 18. In the written statement filed on the side of the third defendant, a flimsy denial has been made to the effect that the original owner of the suit properties has not executed the Will dated 31.05.2000 in favour of the plaintiffs. But in the written statement filed on the side of the fifth defendant as well as in the counter filed by him in Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 it has been clearly stated that due to pestering of the plaintiffs, the original owner of the suit properties has executed the Will dated 31.05.2000 and subsequently cancelled the same and thereafter voluntarily and in a sound disposing state of mind executed the Will dated 25.08.2004 in favour of the fifth defendant. 19. As stated earlier, in the written statement filed on the side of the fifth defendant as well as in the counter filed in Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 it has been clearly admitted to the effect that the original owner of the suit properties viz., Appavoo Pillai has executed the Will dated 31.05.2000. At this juncture, it would be apropos to look into section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same reads as follows: Facts admitted need not be proved.-No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: 20. A cursory look of the said provision would go to show that admitted facts need not be proved. In the instant case in the written statement as well as in the counter filed on the side of the fifth defendant, execution of the Will dated 31.05.2000 in favour of the plaintiffs by the original owner of the suit properties viz., Appavoo Pillai has been clearly admitted. Since in the pleadings put forth on the side of the fifth defendant a clear admission has been made with regard to execution of the Will dated 31.05.2000, the same need not be proved by the plaintiffs. However, as pointed out earlier, in the written statement filed by the third defendant a denial has been made about the execution of the Will dated 31.05.2000. However, as pointed out earlier, in the written statement filed by the third defendant a denial has been made about the execution of the Will dated 31.05.2000. Since a denial has been made in the written statement filed by the third defendant, the plaintiffs have to prove the due execution as well attestation of the Will dated 31.05.2000. 21. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows: "Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.-If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: [Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.]" 22. From the close reading of the said provision it is easily discernible that if there is any specific denial with regard to execution and attestation of a document which is required by law to be attested, examination of one of the attesting witnesses is very much essential. 23. The Will dated 31.05.2000 has been marked as Ex.A15. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that Ex.A15 has been executed by the original owner of the suit properties viz., Appavoo Pillai in favour of the plaintiffs. In Ex.15 two attesting witnesses namely K.Srinivasan and B.Chandrasekaran have put their signatures. Both of them have examined as PWs.3 and 4 on the side of the plaintiffs and their categorical evidence is that on 31.05.2000 the deceased Appavoo Pillai has executed the Will dated 31.05.2000 and he put his signature and both of them have seen the same and subsequently both of them have put their signatures and the same have been seen by the executant viz., Appavoo Pillai. From the cumulative reading of the evidence given by PWs.3 and 4 it is pellucid that the deceased Appavoo Pillai has executed Ex.A15 on 31.05.2000 in favour of the plaintiffs and thus, the plaintiffs have proved due execution and attestation of Ex.A15. From the cumulative reading of the evidence given by PWs.3 and 4 it is pellucid that the deceased Appavoo Pillai has executed Ex.A15 on 31.05.2000 in favour of the plaintiffs and thus, the plaintiffs have proved due execution and attestation of Ex.A15. 24. The consistent stand taken on the side of the fifth defendant is that the original owner of the suit properties viz., Appavoo Pillai has executed the Will dated 25.08.2004 in his favour by way of cancelling the Will dated 31.05.2000. The Will dated 25.08.2004 has been marked as Ex.B20. In Ex.B20 the alleged persons namely V.Venkataraman and S.Rajagopal have put their signatures as attesting witnesses. 25. On the side of the fifth defendant attempts have been made so as to examine one of the alleged attestors of Ex.B20 by name S.Rajagopal and the same is evidenced by way of marking Exs.X3 and X4. Exs.X3 and X4 are nothing but Court summonses. In fact twice summonses have been taken out to the said Rajagopal for the purpose of examining him on the side of the fifth defendant so as to prove the due execution as well as attestation of Ex.B20. But due to some reasons he has not been able to receive summonses. The other attesting witness by name V.Venkataraman has passed away and his son by name Prasanna Venkatesh has been examined as DW2 and his specific evidence is that the signature found in Ex.B20 is the signature of his father viz. V.Venkataraman. 26. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants has vehemently argued that despite of due diligence on the part of the fifth defendant, one of the attesting witnesses of Ex.B20 viz., S.Rajagopal has not been secured. V.Venkataraman. 26. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants has vehemently argued that despite of due diligence on the part of the fifth defendant, one of the attesting witnesses of Ex.B20 viz., S.Rajagopal has not been secured. Under the said circumstances, DW2, son of the other attesting witness of Ex.B20 has been examined under section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the trial Court without considering the exertion made on the side of the fifth defendant so as to examine the said Rajagopal and also without considering the evidence given by DW2 inconsonance with the provision of Section 69 of the said Act has erroneously rejected Ex.B20 on the ground that its due execution as well as attestation have not been proved and the approach made by the trial court is totally incorrect and therefore, the Judgment and decree as well as order passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. 27. As a tart rejoinder, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs has ingeniously contended that since one of the alleged attesting witnesses of Ex.B20 is available and since he has not received summonses, due to his absence the provision of section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked by way of examining the son of other attesting witness of Ex.B20 and the trial Court after considering the existing infirmities on the side of the defendants has rightly rejected Ex.B20 and therefore, the Judgment and decree as well as order passed by the trial Court are perfectly correct and the same do not require interference. 28. For the purpose of analysing the rival submissions made on either side, it would be more useful to look into the provision of section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same reads as follows: "Proof where no attesting witness found.-If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his writing, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person." 29. Even a mere reading of the said provision would clearly show that if an attesting witness cannot be found, his attestation must be proved by a person who knows his handwriting and signature of the executant of a document must also be proved to the effect that it is in his handwriting. 30. Under Section 69 of the said Act, the following two things must be proved. (a) Signature of an attesting witness must be proved by a person who knows his handwriting, (b) Signature of the executant of a document in question must also be proved to the effect that the same is in his handwriting. 31. The sentence mentioned in the said section to the effect that "it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person" is nothing but a compound sentence and therefore, both the aspects must be proved under the said section. 32. In the instant case, DW2, son of the alleged attestor of V.Venkataraman has simply identified his father's signature and he has not stated anything about the signature of the alleged executant of Ex.B20 viz. Appavoo Pillai. Therefore, the initial condition imposed in section 69 of the said Act has been complied with and subsequent condition imposed therein has not been complied with. Since the vital sentence used in section 69 of the said Act is nothing but a compound sentence since the subsequent condition has not been complied with, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the due execution as well as attestation of Ex.B20 have been proved by the fifth defendant on the basis of the evidence given by DW2. 33. On the side of the fifth defendant an abortive attempt has been made for the purpose of proving Ex.B20 by way of examining the alleged scribe of Ex.B20 by name B.Arunagirinathan as DW3. In his chief examination he has stated that Ex.B20 has been executed by the original owner of the suit properties viz. Appavoo Pillai. During the course of cross examination he has stated that on 25.08.2004 he typed Ex.B20 and on the same day at about 5.00 pm. he handed over the same to Appavoo Pillai and at that time nobody has been present except Appavoo Pillai. Appavoo Pillai. During the course of cross examination he has stated that on 25.08.2004 he typed Ex.B20 and on the same day at about 5.00 pm. he handed over the same to Appavoo Pillai and at that time nobody has been present except Appavoo Pillai. He read entire Ex.B20 and subsequently put his signature in his presence and at the time of putting signature by Appavoo Pillai in Ex.B20 nobody has been present in his house. 34. Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act (Act 39 of 1925) reads as follows: "The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has been some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary." 35. From a close reading of the said provision, it is clear that every Will should be attested by two or more witnesses and each of them should see the signature of testator and the attestors must also put their signatures in the presence of testator. 36. It is an everlasting principle of law that "a Will is to be attested by two witnesses in terms of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Indisputably, the requirement of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is required to be complied with for proving a Will. Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, mandates attestation by two witnesses. Thus, not only must the execution of Will be proved, but actual execution must also be attested by at least two witnesses. Attestation of execution of will must be in conformity with the provisions of Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act. "Attestation" and "execution" connote two different meanings." 37. As pointed out earlier the specific evidence of DW3 is that after typing Ex.B20, he handed over the same to the alleged executant of Ex.B20 viz., Appavool Pillai and he put his signature in his presence. "Attestation" and "execution" connote two different meanings." 37. As pointed out earlier the specific evidence of DW3 is that after typing Ex.B20, he handed over the same to the alleged executant of Ex.B20 viz., Appavool Pillai and he put his signature in his presence. His further evidence is that at the time of handing over Ex.B20 and also putting signature by the said Appavoo Pillai nobody has been present. Therefore, there is no incertitude in coming to a conclusion that the conditions imposed in Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 have not been fulfilled on the side of the fifth defendant. Since the conditions imposed in section 63(c) of the said Act have not been complied with on the side of the fifth defendant, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the alleged execution as well as attestation of Ex.B20 have been proved on his side. 38. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants has contended that since one of the attesting witnesses by name Rajagopal cannot be secured for the purpose of examining him so as to prove Ex.B20, role of DW2 has been utilised under section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Exs.X3 and X4, summonses it has been simply stated that at the time of serving summonses, the said Rajagopal has not been present in his house. Since at the time of serving summonses the said Rajagopal has not been present in his house, his absence cannot be construed as "no attesting witness can be found". Further, it has already been stated that DW2 has not complied with the subsequent condition imposed in Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the contention urged on the side of the appellants/defendants with regard to Ex.B20 cannot be accepted. 39. The consistent stand taken on the side of the respondents/plaintiffs, particularly in the reply statement to the effect that the Will dated 25.08.2004 is nothing but a concoction. Even though a definite stand has been taken to the effect mentioned supra, no attempt has been made on the side of the respondents/plaintiffs to prove that Ex.B20 is a concocted document. The consistent stand taken on the side of the respondents/plaintiffs, particularly in the reply statement to the effect that the Will dated 25.08.2004 is nothing but a concoction. Even though a definite stand has been taken to the effect mentioned supra, no attempt has been made on the side of the respondents/plaintiffs to prove that Ex.B20 is a concocted document. At this juncture, the Court has to look into section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same reads as follows: Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.- In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. [This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger- impressions]." 40. The provision of the said Section enables the Court to make comparison of disputed signature, writing or seal with admitted signature, writing or seal. 41. In the written statement filed on the side of the fifth defendant as well as counter filed by him in Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 it has been clearly stated that the deceased Appavoo Pillai has executed the Will dated 31.05.2000 in favour of the plaintiffs at their instigation. Therefore, execution of the Will dated 31.05.2000 (Ex.A15) has been clearly admitted by the fifth defendant. Under the said circumstances, the court is having admitted signature of the executant of Ex.A15. As per the Section mentioned supra, the Court is having unfettered power so as to compare the disputed signature, writing or seal with admitted signature, writing or seal. The specific contention of the fifth defendant is that Ex.B20 has been executed by the said Appavoo Pillai in his favour. As per the Section mentioned supra, the Court is having unfettered power so as to compare the disputed signature, writing or seal with admitted signature, writing or seal. The specific contention of the fifth defendant is that Ex.B20 has been executed by the said Appavoo Pillai in his favour. In fact this Court has collated the admitted signature of Appavoo Pillai found in Ex.A15 with his alleged signature found in Ex.B20 and ultimately found that total variation is present between his admitted signature and his alleged signature. It is not an exaggeration to say that each signature found in Ex.B20 varies from the signature found in Ex.A15. Further the signatures found in Ex.B20 are mutually different in shape as well as in structure. Therefore, the Court can very well come to a conclusion that Ex.B20 is nothing but a forged document. 42. The trial Court after perpending the available evidence on record has rightly decreed the suit and in view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any attractive force in the contention urged on the side of the appellants/defendants. 43. The respondent in CMA (MD) No.531 of 2011 as petitioner has filed Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 praying to issue a legal heir certificate in her favour with regard to movables mentioned therein and her specific contention is that her brother by name Appavoo Pillai has executed the Will dated 31.05.2000 in her favour and also in favour of her sons. Under the said circumstances she is entitled to get legal heir certificate sought for in the petition. 44. On the side of the respondent it has been stated that even though the said Appavoo Pillai has executed the Will dated 31.05.2000 subsequently cancelled the same and he executed the Will dated 25.08.2004 in his favour. 45. It has already been discussed in detail that the Will dated 31.05.2000 (Ex.A15) has been duly proved with regard to its execution as well as attestation. But the Will dated 25.08.2004 has not at all been proved with regard to its due execution as well as attestation and further this Court has held that the same is nothing but a concocted document. But the Will dated 25.08.2004 has not at all been proved with regard to its due execution as well as attestation and further this Court has held that the same is nothing but a concocted document. Since the Will dated 25.08.2004 is nothing but a concocted document and since the Will dated 31.05.2000 has been proved as required by law, the petitioner in Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 is entitled to get the relief sought for therein. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record has rightly allowed the same. In view of the discussion made earlier, this court has not found any force in the contention urged on the side of the appellant/respondent. 46. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No.101 of 2005 for the reliefs declaration, recovery of possession and past damages on the basis of Ex.A15. Since Ex.A15 is a genuine document, the plaintiffs are entitled to get the reliefs sought for therein. Likewise, the petitioner in Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 is entitled to get the relief mentioned therein and altogether the present Appeal Suit as well as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are liable to be dismissed. 47. In fine, this Appeal Suit and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are dismissed with costs. The Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.101 of 2005 and the order passed in Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 by the First Additional District Court, Tiruchirapalli are confirmed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.