N. SOMANATHAN Vs. N.PRABHAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a suit against the respondent and the respondent filed one against the appellant. They are siblings. The plaint schedule property in both the suits is the same. The appellant's suit was for injunction. The respondent's suit was for possession of the plaint schedule property. The two suits were tried jointly. The trial court decreed the suit of the appellant and granted him a decree of injunction restraining the respondent from evicting the appellant from the plaint schedule property by force. The suit of the respondent was dismissed. She filed two appeals. The lower appellate court allowed both the appeals. The appellate court dismissed the suit of the appellant and decreed the suit of the respondent granting a decree for possession of the plaint schedule property.

(2.) Heard Smt.Sanjeetha.K.A, the learned counsel for the appellant.

(3.) The appellant, the respondent and two others are the children of Narayanan Nair. He owned properties including the plaint schedule property. The appellant is residing in the plaint schedule property. Narayanan Nair died. The respondent propounded Ext B9 will to claim exclusive title to the plaint schedule property. According to her, Narayanan Nair executed and registered Ext B9 will bequeathing the D schedule property therein to her, the C schedule property to the appellant and the A and B schedule properties to her brothers Gopinathan and Jaganathan respectively. The D schedule property to the will is the plaint schedule property. The appellant disputed the will. He disputed the testamentary capacity of his father to execute the will. If the will is proved and suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will are absent, the decrees under appeal should be confirmed.