JUDGMENT 1. In view of the inter-connectivity of both the cases, this common judgment is delivered. 2. Following are the allegations in short available in the plaint made in O.S. No. 49 of 1987: 2.1. The properties described in the schedule among others belonged to one Damodaraswamy Naidu, who was the husband of the first plaintiff, the father of the second plaintiff and the second defendant and the son of the first defendant, by virtue of a partition between him and the second defendant on 7.2.1979 and also by acquisition. The third defendant is the wife of the second defendant and the fourth defendant is his father-in-law. Damodaraswamy Naidu died on 1.7.1986. After the demise of Damodaraswamy Naidu, there was a misunderstanding with respect to enjoyment of his properties arose between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendants 1 to 4 on the other. By the intervention of the Panchayatdars a temporary arrangement came into being under which the first plaintiff and the first defendant were allowed to remain in possession of the immovable properties belonging to Damodaraswamy Naidu. In the said arrangement, it was arrived that if there is any Will executed by Damodaraswamy Naidu, parties will have to work out their rights in accordance with that. The plaintiffs stated that the first plaintiff was in possession of item 1 of the properties and was put in possession of the said property with the first defendant as per the temporary arrangement as referred to above. The first plaintiff has also permitted the third parties to cut the grass as cattle feed at the fixed rates. 2.2. While in sound and disposing state of mind, Damodaraswamy Naidu executed a Will dated 9.8.1984 bequeathing his properties to the plaintiffs with a direction that the first plaintiff should pay Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) per month to the first defendant during her life time. Damodaraswamy Naidu did not give any right to his son, the second defendant in any of his properties as he had strained relationship with his son, the second defendant. The said Will was taken from a locker in Bank of Baroda by the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff was appointed as nominee by Damodaraswamy Naidu with respect to the locker, entitling her to open the locker. The said Will was taken from a locker in Bank of Baroda by the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff was appointed as nominee by Damodaraswamy Naidu with respect to the locker, entitling her to open the locker. In fact, in the temporary arrangements made in Panchayat it was mentioned that the nominee shall take the articles available in the locker. The plaintiffs after getting the key of the locker from the Panchayatdars opened the locker and found that there was a Will besides a bunch of keys. The original documents of the partition deed dated 7.2.1979, the sale deed dated 17.2.1968 in favour of Damodaraswamy Naidu and the temporary arrangements are all entrusted to the Panchayatdars. 2.3. By virtue of the bequest made by Damodaraswamy Naidu, under the Will, the plaintiffs became entitled to the properties described in the schedule as items 1, 2 and 3 and their absolute right with respect of the same should be declared in favour of the plaintiffs. The possession of the first plaintiff regarding immovable property should be protected by a decree for injunction by virtue of the Will dated 9.8.1984 and by the temporary arrangement dated 6.12.1986, the defendants 2 to 4 are in possession of the motor car described in item 2 in the schedule and they should be directed to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration regarding their absolute right to the deposit amounts described in item No. 3 and available with the defendants 5 and 6, so that on the basis of the Will, they can recover the amount due under the fixed deposits. 2.4. The possession of the plaintiffs with respect to item No. 1 of the suit properties must be protected in view of the Will dated 9.8.1984. Though under the temporary arrangements the first defendant also was allowed to be in possession of item No. 1, she did not remain in occupation and left for her village Siddhanaickenpalayam, Palladam Taluk. She is not in possession of any of the suit properties. She has no right in the suit properties and her only right is to receive Rs. 500/- per month for her maintenance. But, she is putting forth claims to the suit properties. She is also trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs with respect to item No. 1 of the suit properties. She has no right in the suit properties and her only right is to receive Rs. 500/- per month for her maintenance. But, she is putting forth claims to the suit properties. She is also trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs with respect to item No. 1 of the suit properties. She must be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction restraining her from disturbing plaintiffs’ possession of item No. 1 of the suit properties. 3. In the written statement and additional statement filed by the first defendant in O.S. No. 49 of 1987, it is pleaded as under: 3.1. The suit for declaration is false, frivolous, vexatious and unsustainable both in law and on the facts of the case. This defendant does not admit any of the averments mentioned in the plaint except those which are specifically admitted in the written statement and puts the plaintiffs to strict proof of all of them. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs on untenable grounds. The suit is not maintainable as against this defendants since no relief has been claimed against her. This defendant is not a necessary party and the suit has to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of parties. The allegation that the suit properties belong to Damodaraswamy Naidu, the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff, by virtue of Partition deed dated 7.2.1979 entered into between Damodaraswamy Naidu and his son Devaraj. The Damodaraswamy Naidu and the second defendant have no right to divide the property amongst themselves without reference to this defendant. This defendant being a sharer is entitled to a share in the properties left by her husband late Krishnaswamy. The alleged partition deed dated 7.2.1979 is unenforceable, illegal and late Damodaraswamy Naidu did not derive any title under the said document. 3.2. The allegations made in para 4 of the plaint that misunderstanding arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants with regard to the enjoyment of the properties; that there was intervention by the Panchayatdars, that a family arrangement came into being under which the first plaintiff and this defendant were allowed to remain in possession of the immovable properties; that the parties had to work out their rights if there is a Will by Damodaraswamy Naidu and that the first plaintiff was in possession of item 1 of the properties are false. There is no family arrangement as alleged by the plaintiffs. The alleged family arrangement is only a tell-tale. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs have not even mentioned the names of Panchayatdars who took part in the alleged Panchayat. The xerox copy of the alleged family arrangement is unenforceable and cannot be considered. The defendant is not a party to the said alleged arrangement and therefore the same will not be binding on this defendant. 3.3. The allegations that Damodaraswamy Naidu executed a Will dated 9.8.1984; that the alleged Will was taken from the locker of Bank of Baroda, and that first plaintiff was appointed as nominee entitling her to open the locker are false and untenable. The alleged Will is a created one. It is not genuine. It has been concocted and a rank forgery. The Will was not propounded. At no point of time the existence of a Will was proclaimed by the plaintiffs. The Damodaraswamy Naidu and the first plaintiff were both jointly operating the locker. The first plaintiff was already in possession of lock and key and the original documents referred to in the plaint were in the custody of Damodaraswamy Naidu and the same were kept in the house. Since the first plaintiff was with Damodaraswamy Naidu she had the access to the said document. At no point of time Damodaraswamy Naidu executed another Will and there was no necessity for him to execute any such Will. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the declaratory relief as prayed for by them. This defendant is entitled to a share in all the properties left by her husband Krishnaswamy and she reserves her right to file a separate suit claiming her share. 3.4. The averments made in para VIA of the plaint are all false, misleading and unsustainable. It is false to state that this defendant remain in occupation of item of the suit property and left for her village Siddhanaickenpalayam; that this defendant is not in possession of any of the suit properties; that this defendant has no right in the suit property and her only right is to receive Rs. 500/- p.m. for her maintenance and that this defendant is trying to disturb the alleged possession of the plaintiffs with respect to item No. 1 of the suit properties. The Will alleged in the plaint is a forged one. 500/- p.m. for her maintenance and that this defendant is trying to disturb the alleged possession of the plaintiffs with respect to item No. 1 of the suit properties. The Will alleged in the plaint is a forged one. This defendant has got every right in the suit property. It is pertinent to state that the plaintiffs did not aver or allege about the particular fact in the plaint filed at the first instance. This has been concocted for the purpose of false case subsequently. There is no cause of action for the suit against this defendant. The cause of action for injunction alleged against this defendant is false. The averments with respect to the alleged attempts on the part of this defendant are vague in material particulars. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against this defendant. No relief of injunction can be granted against this defendant who is a co-owner of the property. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs. 4. In the written statement filed by the second defendant and adopted by the third defendant, it is alleged as under: 4.1. The suit is not maintainable in law and on facts. These defendants do not admit the various allegations in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted by them and put the plaintiffs to strict proof of the same. The description of the property is vague and misleading. Neither boundaries are given nor details are furnished in the suit description to file a detailed objections. In any event, these defendants stoutly deny any right over the properties in S.F. No. 480/B measuring.16 cents and in G.S. No. 510/B, 0.53 cents. It is not known on what basis the plaintiffs are claiming any right over the said portions. The said lands cannot be claimed as the lands of Damodaraswamy Naidu. The properties in S.F. No. 480/B and 510/B are not concerned in the partition deed dated 7.2.1979 and the same are not covered under the said partition deed. The Car (TNY 5699) was in bad condition and these defendants carried out all the repairs by spending about Rs. 30,000/- and made it as usable condition. If he plaintiffs claim the vehicle, they are bound to pay the costs of repairs. The deceased Damodaraswamy was living with the second defendant upto the time of his death. 4.2. The Car (TNY 5699) was in bad condition and these defendants carried out all the repairs by spending about Rs. 30,000/- and made it as usable condition. If he plaintiffs claim the vehicle, they are bound to pay the costs of repairs. The deceased Damodaraswamy was living with the second defendant upto the time of his death. 4.2. The several reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs are untenable and the claims are made without any basis. The suit is not properly valued and the Court fee paid on the plaint is not correct. The plaintiffs are not having any right to claim on fixed deposit amounts. In any event, this defendant is the son and a sharer who is entitled to share the properties. The plaintiffs and first defendant cannot exclude this defendant from enjoying the properties left by Damodaraswamy Naidu. This defendant is a co-owner and entitled to share the entire properties left by his father. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the entire fixed deposit amount. 4.3. The plaintiffs cannot vaguely claim that the suit properties are acquired through acquisition by Damodaraswamy Naidu. There are no details or particulars in the plaint how Damodaraswamy Naidu acquired the properties. The plaintiffs are bound to prove that Damodaraswamy Naidu acquired properties other than the portion shown under the partition deed dated 7.2.1979. There is no need to implead the defendants 3 and 4 as parties to the suit. The suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. 4.4. This defendant is in actual possession and enjoyment of the properties left by Damodaraswamy Naidu and it is false to allege that the plaintiffs are in actual possession and enjoyment of the properties. The alleged temporary arrangement is not a conclusive one and the same is not valid. It is deliberately false and incorrect to allege that in pursuance of the Panchayatdars temporary arrangement, the plaintiffs were allowed to remain in possession. The plaintiffs are never in possession of the properties and this defendant never parted his right over the properties. There is no recital under the temporary arrangement that if there is any Will executed by Damodaraswamy Naidu parties will have to work out their rights in accordance with law. This defendant emphatically denies any such recital and the recital is that the Will should be registered one. There is no recital under the temporary arrangement that if there is any Will executed by Damodaraswamy Naidu parties will have to work out their rights in accordance with law. This defendant emphatically denies any such recital and the recital is that the Will should be registered one. This defendant states that Damodaraswamy Naidu did not execute any Will and the alleged Will is a rank forgery. The plaintiffs suppressed the fact that the arrangement could not be given effect as the first defendant refused to agree for the arrangement. It is false to allege that Damodaraswamy Naidu executed a Will on 9.8.1984 while he was in sound and disposing state of mind. The alleged Will dated 9.8.1984 is a rank forgery and the same is not valid and binding on this defendant. If there is such a Will there is no need for temporary arrangement. The Will is not a genuine one and it is fabricated with the aid of plaintiffs’ friends. The attestors were co-workers and they are yesman of plaintiffs and Sriharan. It is false to allege that this defendant and Damodaraswamy Naidu were in strained relationship and that the first plaintiff was appointed as nominee by Damodaraswamy Naidu with respect to locker entitled her to open the locker. There was no such nomination and the same has to be proved. It is false to allege that the plaintiffs opened the locker after getting the key from Panchayatdars and found the Will dated 9.8.1984. If there is any bona fides in the Will, the attestor Palanisamy would have stated while signing the alleged temporary arrangement about the existence of Will. The Will dated 9.8.1984 is nothing but imagination of a fertile brain for ulterior reasons. There is no exclusive right to seek declaration either for car or for deposits. Hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. In the written statement filed by the fourth defendant, it is stated as under: “The suit is not maintainable in law and on facts. This defendant is an unnecessary party to the proceedings. The plaintiffs have impleaded him as a party to the suit for ulterior reasons. This defendant is not claiming any right title or interest over the suit properties. The alleged acquisition and partition deed are not admitted. This defendant is an unnecessary party to the proceedings. The plaintiffs have impleaded him as a party to the suit for ulterior reasons. This defendant is not claiming any right title or interest over the suit properties. The alleged acquisition and partition deed are not admitted. This defendant is not aware of the temporary arrangement and no right can be claimed on the basis of the said document. The plaintiffs are bound to prove the temporary arrangement and genuineness of the Will. Hence, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.” 6. The written statement filed by the fifth defendant, goes as under: “This defendant is not a necessary party to this suit, that he is prepared to abide by any decision that the Court gives regarding the rights of the rival claimants in this suit in relation to the two Fixed Deposits made by the deceased with this defendant. Further, he prays the Court to dismiss the suit.” 7. Following are the allegations in short, available in the plaint made in O.S. No. 46 of 1989: 7.1. The properties more fully described in the schedule originally belonged to Damodaraswamy Naidu, the son of plaintiff. The first defendant is the wife of Damodaraswamy Naidu and defendants 2 and 3 are the children of Damodaraswamy Naidu, the second defendant being his son and the third defendant being his daughter. The Damodaraswamy Naidu died on 1.7.1986. Damodaraswamy Naidu and his son the second defendant partitioned the family properties under a registered partition deed dated 7.2.1979. In the said partition, Damodaraswamy Naidu was allotted several items of properties which are mentioned in schedule ‘A’ to the partition deed. The total extent of properties thus allotted to Damodaraswamy Naidu was 10 acres and 27 cents which are more fully described in the schedule. Damodaraswamy Naidu died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs. The plaintiff being the class-I heir is entitled to 1/4 th share in the properties left by Damodaraswamy Naidu. The defendants 1 and 3 have joined hands and created bogus and fraudulent documents with a view to defeat the rights of the plaintiff in the suit property. The defendants 1 and 3 have filed a suit in O.S. No. 49 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore, against the plaintiff and Others seeking declaration of title and for other reliefs. The defendants 1 and 3 have filed a suit in O.S. No. 49 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore, against the plaintiff and Others seeking declaration of title and for other reliefs. The defendants 1 and 3 have contended that Damodaraswamy Naidu has executed an alleged Will dated 9.8.1984 bequeathing the properties in their favour. The said Damodaraswamy Naidu did not execute any such Will. The plaintiff came to know of the alleged Will only when she was served with a copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 49 of 1987. The allegation made by the defendants 1 and 2 that there was a Panchayat and in pursuance of the said Panchayat they were permitted to be in occupation of the property are all false. The plaintiff is not admitting the ruth, validity or genuineness of the alleged Will relied upon by the defendants 1 and 3 and she is seriously disputing the same. 7.2. During the life time, Damodaraswamy Naidu deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in two fixed deposits on 27.6.1984 with the fourth defendant. Similarly, he deposited a sum of Rs. 7,500/- by way of fixed deposit with the fifth defendant. Damodaraswamy Naidu was owning an ambassador car bearing Reg. No. TNY 5699. Since the sixth defendant is the administrator of the fifth defendant, he is impleaded as party. The defendants 1 to 3 are acting against the plaintiff’s interest and it is no longer possible to enjoy the property in common. The defendants 1 to 3 are also making hectic attempts to alienate the entire property without reference to the plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the same and unless the defendants 1 to 3 are prohibited by means of a permanent injunction restraining them from in any way alienating or encumbering the property she will be put to great loss and hardship. 8. In the written statement filed by the first and third defendants in O.S. No. 46 of 1989, it is pleaded as under: 8.1. The plaintiff’s claim for the suit property is false and frivolous and it is not maintainable in law and on facts. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of several allegations in the plaint particularly those by those by which she disputes the rights of these defendants to the suit property. The plaintiff’s claim for the suit property is false and frivolous and it is not maintainable in law and on facts. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of several allegations in the plaint particularly those by those by which she disputes the rights of these defendants to the suit property. The relationship between the parties as stated in para 3 of the plaint is substantially correct, but the genealogy stated therein is not complete. Damodaraswamy Naidu died leaving behind a testament i.e. the Will dated 9.8.1984 executed by him while in sound and disposing state of mind and under the said Will he bequeathed the properties belonging to him at the time of his death to these defendants. The plaintiff and the second defendant have no right to the properties of Damodaraswamy Naidu. It is not true to say that the Will was outcome of the fraud alleged to have been purpetrated by these defendants. The allegations that these defendants were creating bogus and fraudulent documents to defeat the rights of the plaintiff is false, mischievous, unfounded and untenable. A Panchayat was brought about to compromise the claims put forth by the parties and in the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 were parties to the said Panchayat. Though in the Panchayat Muchalika, the plaintiff did not sign as she urgently left for her daughters village in Palladam taluk. The plaintiff has wrongly included in G.S. No. 147/2 and the farm house therein. They were sold during his life time by Damodaraswamy Naidu. The plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition as she does not have any right to the suit properties nor she is entitled to the relief of injunction and accounting. Hence, these defendants pray that the suit may be dismissed. 9. The written statement filed by the second defendant is as under: 9.1. The suit is not maintainable in law and on facts. This defendant does not admit the various allegations in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted by him and put the plaintiff to strict proof of the same. The relationship pleaded by the plaintiff is correct and there is no dispute over it. This defendant’s father Damodaraswamy Naidu died intestate and it is false to allege that he has left behind a Will dated 9.8.1984. The Will is fabricated by defendants 1 and 3 to grab the properties. The relationship pleaded by the plaintiff is correct and there is no dispute over it. This defendant’s father Damodaraswamy Naidu died intestate and it is false to allege that he has left behind a Will dated 9.8.1984. The Will is fabricated by defendants 1 and 3 to grab the properties. The genuineness, validity and sound disposing state of mind of executant has to be strictly proved. This defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of about 0.33 cents in S.F. No. 481/1, 488/1 and 488/4. This defendant had constructed a cattle shed etc., and also put up an irrigation channel to the said portion connecting the well located in S.F. No. 488/2 which exclusively belong to this defendant. The Will dated 9.8.1984 is rank forgery and signature itself is false. This defendant is in no way responsible for the suit, that he never attempted to alienate the properties and that there is no idea to sell any portion of the properties. Hence, there is no need to grant an order of injunction as against this defendant. Therefore, he prays to grant a decree for partition allotting this defendant’s 1/4th share. 10. In the written statement filed by the fourth defendant, it is alleged as under: 10.1. This defendant is not a necessary party to the suit and that they are prepared to abide by any direction that the Court gives regarding the rights of rival claimants in the suit in relation to the two fixed deposits made by Damodaraswamy with this defendant. Hence, they pray that the suit may be dismissed. 11. In the written statement filed by the sixth defendant, it is averred as under: “The suit as against this defendant is not maintainable in law. This defendant was appointed as an administrator on 6.9.1986 to run the industry. However, due to non-feasibility, he resigned the job and he has no connection whatsoever with Everest Engineering Works and not holding any of its assets. Thus, the plaintiff has no cause of action against this defendant and unnecessary party to the suit.” 12. This defendant was appointed as an administrator on 6.9.1986 to run the industry. However, due to non-feasibility, he resigned the job and he has no connection whatsoever with Everest Engineering Works and not holding any of its assets. Thus, the plaintiff has no cause of action against this defendant and unnecessary party to the suit.” 12. After analysing the evidence and others circumstances, the learned Principal Sub Judge, Coimbatore, has dismissed the suit in O.S. No. 49 of 1987 with costs and passed preliminary judgment for partition as prayed for in O.S. No. 46 of 1989 excepting the properties contained in “B” in the item No. 1, for 1/4th share in favour of the plaintiff. The permanent injunction was also granted as prayed for. Provision has also been made in the decree so as to enable the plaintiff to work out mesne profits from 1.7.1986. Since the second defendant paid Court fee for his share along with written statement, a preliminary decree for partition of his 1/4th share in the suit properties excepting the property in “B” in item 1 was also passed. Aggrieved against the common judgment, the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 49 of 1987 have preferred these appeals. In both these appeals, arguments were heard simultaneously and this common judgment is rendered. 13. For the sake of convenience, the litigating status of the parties as arrayed in O.S. No. 49 of 1987 are referred to. 14. The following points for consideration have arisen in these appeals: (i) Whether the Will reportedly executed by Damodaraswamy Naidu under Exhibit A-32 dated 9.8.1984 is true, genuine, valid and binding? (ii) Whether Damodaraswamy Naidu was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of Will? (iii) Whether the plaintiff in O.S. No. 46 of 1989 is entitled for partition as prayed for? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 49 of 1987 are entitled to the other reliefs as prayed for? (v) To what relief are the parties entitled to? Points 1 and 2: 15. The first defendant is the wife of one Krishnaswamy Naidu. They have got two daughters and one son by name Damodaraswamy Naidu. His wife is the first plaintiff and the daughter is second plaintiff. Their son is second defendant. Damodaraswamy Naidu died on 1.7.1986. (v) To what relief are the parties entitled to? Points 1 and 2: 15. The first defendant is the wife of one Krishnaswamy Naidu. They have got two daughters and one son by name Damodaraswamy Naidu. His wife is the first plaintiff and the daughter is second plaintiff. Their son is second defendant. Damodaraswamy Naidu died on 1.7.1986. On 7.2.1979, both Damodaraswamy Naidu and his son second defendant entered into a partition under Exhibit A-1-Partition deed, by means of which a number of items enlisted in schedule “A” were allotted to the share of Damodaraswamy Naidu. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the demise of Damodaraswamy Naidu certain frictions arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4 and by intervention of the Panchayathars, a temporary arrangement came into existence by means of which the first plaintiff and the first defendant were allowed to remain in possession of the immovable properties belonging to Damodaraswamy Naidu. Exhibit A-1 is stated to be the said document. By means of this arrangement, the first and second parties viz., the first plaintiff and the first defendant had to enjoy the properties to an extent of 5.51 acres which fell to the share of Damodaraswamy Naidu and to enjoy the profits therefrom, that after the life time of both of them, the son and daughter of Damodaraswamy Naidu viz., the second plaintiff and second defendant herein have to divide and to take absolutely. In Exhibit A-1, Clause No. 7 is disputed. It is profitable to extract the said clause No. 7 for easy understanding: 16. In this arrangement, the first defendant has not signed. It is an unregistered one, typed on the stamp paper to the value of Rs. 10/-. Since the first defendant has not participated in this transaction it is contended that it is not binding on her. As regards the circumstances, which lead to bringing Exhibit A-1 to being, a careful scrutiny of the oral testimonies of the witnesses is essential. The plaintiffs pressed into service Exhibit A-28, a xerox copy of Exhibit A-1 in which the second sentence in the above such Clause No. 7 is not found, that is to say, It is the definite case of the second defendant that his father had not executed any Will and Will Exhibit A-32 is forged and fabricated one. Exhibit A-32 is an unregistered Will. Exhibit A-32 is an unregistered Will. The contents of Exhibit A-32 go to the effect that the testator had no faith in his son who would not look after him nor his mother. Hence, he wanted to make arrangements for the properties to be taken up by the beneficiaries, that till his life time he would enjoy the properties absolutely and after his life time, all the properties standing in his name shall go to his wife Rathinam and daughter Santhamani. 17. P.W.1, wife of Damodaraswamy Naidu has graphically narrated all the events aftermath the death of her husband including the way in which Exhibit A-1 came into being. 18. P.W.1 says that at the time of Panchayat, the Panchayatdars told that if there were any Will, the parties had to abide by the Will. She further deposes that P.W.2 Palanichamy who is one among the attestors to the Will, told others at the time of Panchayat that Damodaraswamy Naidu told him that he had written a Will. 19. Absence of the sentence in Exhibit A-1 that “the Will should have been a registered one”, has got direct bearing on the proof of execution and attestation of the Will. A suggestion was put to P.W.1 that in Exhibit A-18 a strip of paper was placed so as to hide the sentence and a xerox copy was taken and that is Exhibit A-28, which is denied by her. It is also in her evidence that P.W.2 also participated in the Panchayat, who told at the time of Panchayat that there was a Will executed by Damodaraswamy Naidu. Since he has stated so, Clause No. 7 in Exhibit A-18 was written, she further adds. A suggestion was also put to her that when P.W.2 was definite about the existence of the Will there was no necessity to include Clause No. 7 and more particularly the second sentence in Clause No. 7 as regards registration of Will. She pleads ignorance of the above said aspect. She says that when she lays her signature in Exhibit A-18 the second sentence was not there, that it is a false statement and she does not know who had perpetrated foul play by adding the sentence and that she also did not ask D.W.3. 20. She pleads ignorance of the above said aspect. She says that when she lays her signature in Exhibit A-18 the second sentence was not there, that it is a false statement and she does not know who had perpetrated foul play by adding the sentence and that she also did not ask D.W.3. 20. P.W.2 in his evidence would say that at the time of Panchayat he was sent for by D.W.3 who was Savaripalayam Panchayat President, Krishnaswamy, Govindaraj and two or three persons who convened Panchayat, that he signed in Exhibit A-18, that in Exhibit A-18 he has written with pen, that as per Panchayat Clause No. 7 was not in Exhibit A-18, that when he signed, the second sentence in Clause No. 7 was not there, that since he informed the Panchayatdars that Damodaraswamy Naidu had executed a Will, Clause No. 7 was added in Exhibit A-18. In his cross-examination, he admits that D.W.3 is a creditable person D.W.3 says conversely that at the time of Panchayat P.W.2 did not say about the existence of Will, so also plaintiffs and Baskaran. In his cross-examination, D.W.3 further says that P.W.2 did not say that Damodaraswamy Naidu wrote a Will and he got attestation from P.W.2, that since P.W.2 created a doubt as to the Will, Clause No. 7 was written in Exhibit A-18, that there was no necessity to add Clause No. 7, had P.W.2 divulged about the Will, that if P.W.2 had really stated like that Panchayatdars would have asked him at once to bring the Will and that concerned persons did not give consent to abide by the terms of the Will. He would further add that Panchayatdars resolved to add second sentence as to registration of the Will. The above said parts of evidence would tend to falsify the whole account of P.W.2 with regard to his statement before the Panchayatdars that the Will was in existence. 21. With reference to the execution and attestation of Exhibit A-32-Will the evidence of P.W.2 has got much importance. Being an attestor to the Will, the plaintiffs’ case depends entirely upon his evidence. Only if his evidence inspires confidence of the Court, that is to say, only if he satisfies the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, there can be a finding that the Will was duly executed and attested. Being an attestor to the Will, the plaintiffs’ case depends entirely upon his evidence. Only if his evidence inspires confidence of the Court, that is to say, only if he satisfies the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, there can be a finding that the Will was duly executed and attested. In the chief examination, P.W.2 would say that Damodaraswamy Naidu was conversing with him, that he went inside the house and returned with Exhibit A-32 and gave it to him asking him to read, that he (P.W.2) asked him to sign first and he singed afterwards. He (P.W.2) signed as attestor and afterwards Govindaraj put his signature, that the attestors saw the testator signed and the testator saw the attesting witnesses signing the Will. When P.W.2 was subjected to cross examination on behalf of the second and third defendants, he has stated that when he signed the Will, Damodaraswamy Naidu had already signed. He admits that he is in inimical terms with the second defendant. It is his evidence that the second defendant has filed a suit in O.S. No. 262 of 1987 on a promissory note executed by him for Rs. 5,000/- and the suit is pending, that he is not in talking terms with the second and third defendants. He also says that Damodaraswamy Naidu was commanding good health and that he did not know whether he was doubtful about his length of life, and that at the time of execution of Will, there was no likelihood to expect the end of Damodaraswamy Naidu. In the chief examination, he says that Damodaraswamy Naidu already signed the Will. The above part of evidence in his chief examination appears that when Damodaraswamy Naidu brought the Will from the inner part of the house, he had already signed. This evidence goes As far as his evidence as to the strained relationship between the second defendant and Damodaraswamy Naidu is concerned, it goes to the effect that even though both of them were residing under the same roof, they were having separate mess, that the second defendant was frequently demanding money from his father and he was not obedient to his father. But D.W.3 would say that the relationship between the second defendant and his father was cordial. The second defendant is natural heir who was excluded from inheritance in the Will. But D.W.3 would say that the relationship between the second defendant and his father was cordial. The second defendant is natural heir who was excluded from inheritance in the Will. If so, the propounder of the Will should establish that the exclusion of the second defendant was the wish of the testator. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that Damodarswamy Naidu made a deposit of Rs. 7,500/- under Exhibit A-13 Fixed Deposit receipt in which he has appointed the second defendant as his nominee. If really the father had got aversion on his son, he might not have appointed him, the second defendant as nominee. He might have appointed any one of the plaintiffs as nominee. This circumstance would show that the version that the relationship among father and son was bitter is incorrect. P.W.2 appears to be untrustworthy in view of the evidence of D.W.3. The cumulative effect of the above said circumstances would candidly show that the execution and attestation of the Will has not been proved as expected by law. 22. Another circumstance which would lead to lay suspicion over the genuineness of the Will is the way in which it came to existence as stated by P.W.1. She says that in the bureau belonging to Damodaraswamy Naidu bank locker key was there, that at the time of Panchayat the Panchayatdars opened the bureau, at that time Sub Inspector of Peelamedu Police Station, mediators 7 in number, some members of the public, herself (P.W.1), second defendant, second plaintiff and her husband were present, that the mediators prepared a list with reference to the articles available inside the bureau and the same was written by D.W.3, that bank locker key, locker receipt and bureau key were given to her by D.W.3 and the bureau key was already with P.W.2. In another part of cross examination, she says that when she was opening the locker after the death of her husband, nobody was near her and it is incorrect to suggest that the Will was not inside the locker. She also adds that her daughter and son-in-law were outside the locker room. Normally, when a customer is operating the locker in a bank excepting the customer who is holding the locker, nobody is permitted inside. She also adds that her daughter and son-in-law were outside the locker room. Normally, when a customer is operating the locker in a bank excepting the customer who is holding the locker, nobody is permitted inside. P.W.2 says that in Exhibit A-18 it is not mentioned that locker key was handed over to the first plaintiff and the Will was searched. He also says that he told second defendant about the Will and asked him to search for it, that he asked to check up the bureau whether Will was inside, that the bureau key was with him, that he also advised that when the locker was opened all the family members must be there in addition to one of the mediators, that he did not get consent from other family members to hand over the locker key to the first plaintiff, that it is not mentioned in Exhibit A-18 that bureau key was with him, that after the death of Damodarasamy Naidu the first plaintiff told that he (P.W.2) might retain the key. D.W.3 would definitely say that at the time of opening the bureau no police personnel was present, that when bureau was opened, locker key was not inside, that the Panchayatdars decided that nominee of Damodaraswamy Naidu to open the locker, that locker key was with first plaintiff, that it is incorrect to state that they handed over the locker key to the first plaintiff since her name was in the locker receipt. P.W.4-Baroda Bank Manager would say that the locker number was 349 and both Damodaraswamy and his wife would operate the locker. These circumstances indicate that suspicion surrounds existence of the Will. 23. Much was said about the exclusion of natural heir, the second defendant by testator in the Will. It is argued by the respondents that such exclusion is a suspicious circumstance. But, the law is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when a natural heir is excluded from inheritance through Will it could not be stated to be a suspicious circumstance. For this proposition, the learned senior counsel Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan, appearing for the appellants placed reliance upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Ramabai Padmakar Patil (Dead) through LRs. For this proposition, the learned senior counsel Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan, appearing for the appellants placed reliance upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Ramabai Padmakar Patil (Dead) through LRs. and Others v. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 537 it is held as under: “A Will is executed to alter the mode of succession and by the very nature of things it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of a natural heir. If a person intends his property to pass to his natural heirs, there is no necessity at all of executing a Will. It is true that a propounder of the Will has to remove all suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means doubt, conjecture or mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance, especially in a case where the bequest has been made in favour of an offspring.” The same principles were reiterated in the following decisions: 1. Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and another v. Panchanan Banerjee (Dead) by LRs and Others AIR 1995 SC 1684 : (1995) 4 SCC 459 . 2. Savithri and Others v. Karthyayani Amma and Others (2007) 11 SCC 621 3. S. Sundaresa Pai and Others v. Sumangala T. Pai (MRS) and Another, (2002) 1 SCC 630 24. In view of the above said proposition, even though the first defendant was excluded from inheritance through Will, it cannot be stated to be a suspicious circumstance. 25. There is no valid reason shown by the plaintiffs as regards strained relationship between Damodaraswamy Naidu and the second defendant, excepting the recitals contained in partition deed Exhibit A-1. But, it is to be seen whether such a dislike on the part of the father would drive him to exclude his son absolutely from inheritance. A cumulative effect of the oral evidence would candidly indicate that Damodaraswamy Naidu was not having aversion on his son so as to put him out from inheriting his properties. 26. A glance of Exhibit A-18 would reveal that the second sentence in Clause 7 is not an added insertion. It is stated that there is no gap between the first and second sentences and the alignment of both sentences is also doubtful. 26. A glance of Exhibit A-18 would reveal that the second sentence in Clause 7 is not an added insertion. It is stated that there is no gap between the first and second sentences and the alignment of both sentences is also doubtful. But while this Court looks at Exhibit A-18, no such discrepancy could not be perceived. 27. It is also argued that in the partition, a considerable extent of properties to the extent of 11.3 acres was allotted to the second defendant and Damodaraswamy Naidu bequeathed by means of a Will to plaintiffs 2.5 acres each, who did not own any other property and hence, this circumstance would probablise the genuineness of the Will, that the execution and valid attestation have been proved by the plaintiffs as required by law. In this context, the above said circumstance would not constitute the ground to make the Will genuine. 28. The health condition of the testator was not clarified by the defendants’ side with the plaintiffs’ witnesses. There was no question put to them in the cross examination to the effect that the testator was not in good health and was not in sound disposing state of mind. Even in the Will there is no reference as to his bad health. However, the totality of the circumstances would portray that the contents of the Will were not the brain child of Damodaraswamy Naidu. Even P.W.2 has stated in his cross examination that he does not know where the Will was typed and he was not aware as to who has dictated the sentences for the Will. There is absolutely no evidence produced to show that the contents were put to the knowledge of the testator. This could also be a suspicious circumstance. P.W.2 further deposes that he does not know how did the Will reach the hands of the first plaintiff. 29. This Court on 15.10.2009 passed an order directing Exhibit A-32 be examined by handwriting experts in Forensic Science Department, Chennai. Accordingly, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed who took the job of handing over the Will to the Forensic Science Department. The Will was examined by the handwriting experts in the said department and Exhibit C-1 final report was produced before this Court with an opinion that the disputed signatures are not the signatures belonging to Damodaraswamy Naidu when his admitted signatures are compared with. The Will was examined by the handwriting experts in the said department and Exhibit C-1 final report was produced before this Court with an opinion that the disputed signatures are not the signatures belonging to Damodaraswamy Naidu when his admitted signatures are compared with. The following are the findings and the conclusions in the report Exhibit C-1 issued by the experts: “A1 to A24 did not write the signature marked (): The standard signatures have been freely written and they agree in the handwriting characteristics on interse comparison. The questioned signature has been imitated and it shows signs of careful execution of letters. It differs significantly from the standard in the handwriting characteristics. The characteristic differences include among other things the following. 1. The skill of writing. 2. The alignment between the initial ‘K’ and letters in the signature. 3. The relative sizing between ‘s’ and subsequent letters in the signature. 4. The manner of connecting the letters in the signature. 5. The manner of terminating the letter ‘K’ and signature. 6. In the detailed designs such as the beginning and formation of loops and curves of ‘K’, ‘s’, ‘y’ and letters in the signature” “The person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked A1 to A24 did not write the red enclosed signature similarly stamped and marked Q.” 30. The evidence of an expert cannot be treated to be a conclusive evidence. The Court can take aid of the same for arriving at a conclusion. In the like matters, it is permissible for the Court to form an independent opinion as regards the genuineness of the document, more particularly speaking, the correctness of the signatures. In view of the discussions taken up earlier, this Court has laid suspicion over the execution of the Will. When the opinion of the expert is taken aid of the Court, it can be stated to be an additional material to further support the view of the Court. In this context, Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that C.W.1 the Expert has opined that all the signatures of a person will not be uniform and it may differ and hence the report of the Forensic Sciences Department cannot be utilised by the respondents to say that Exhibit A-32 is not genuine. In this context, Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that C.W.1 the Expert has opined that all the signatures of a person will not be uniform and it may differ and hence the report of the Forensic Sciences Department cannot be utilised by the respondents to say that Exhibit A-32 is not genuine. C.W.1 was put to notice of several variations found in the documents compared in A1 to A24 and she states that all that were natural variations and hence it should be accepted that even though some slight changes appeared in the signatures of Damodaraswamy Naidu only they are natural variations which would not make the disputed signatures not genuine, the learned senior counsel further adds. 31. In my considered opinion, there is nothing wrong to consider the expert’s opinion to support the view of this Court. Of course, I have taken an independent view as to the genuineness of the Exhibit A-32, that it is not true. No right flows from the Will to the plaintiffs. 32. It is also argued that the second defendant has ignored the witness box and hence, adverse inference could be taken. The second defendant did not examine himself. However, the first defendant Chinnammal examined herself and assailed the Will. Further, it is for the plaintiffs to establish the genuineness and validity of the Will. In this context, even if the second defendant was not examined, it would not be fatal to the case of the defendants. 33. In the light of the above said observations, this Court is of a firm view that Exhibit A-32 Will is not true, genuine and valid. It is a cooked up document. Points 1 and 2 are answered as indicated above. Point Nos. 3 to 5: 34. Consequent to the answering for points 1 and 2, this Court answers these points to the effect that since there is no testamentary succession for the estate of Damodaraswamy Naidu, the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 46 of 1989 have to be non-suited for the relief as prayed for in the suit and as for the claim of plaintiffs for partition, as prayed for in O.S. No. 49 of 1989 have to be granted. In such view of this matter, interference with the common judgment and decrees passed by the Court below is not warranted, which deserve to be confirmed and they are accordingly confirmed. These appeals have no merits which suffer dismissal. I answer these points as above. In fine, both the appeals in A.S. No. 254 of 1990 and A.S. No. 243 of 1991 are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Appeals dismissed.