PALANIAMMAL Vs. CHINNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the suit for partition, O.S.No.19 of 1982, the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram. The plain-tiff in the suit is the appellant the defendant in the suit is the respondent in the appeal. Convenience suggests that we to the parties as per the nomenclature in the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff and the defendant stand in the relationship of the mother- daughter-in-law. In respect of the properties, which the son of the plaintiff (and) who the husband of the defendant obtained in a partition in the family on 22.10.1971, the stated to have executed a Will dated 27.4.1978, marked in the case as Ex.B-5 in favour the defendant. This Will is being put forth by the defendant to stultify the claim for a asked for by the plaintiff. But for the Will, the plaintiff would be entitled to such a Hence the primary question that arose for consideration before the court below was whether the defendant could rely on the Will Ex.B-5 to non-suit the plaintiff. On evidence, oral and documentary, placed before it, the court below came to the conclusion that the Will is a genuine document; its due execution was proved; and it has got upheld. THE result is the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the court below. This obliged the plaintiff to prefer this appeal.

(3.) MR.S.Sethurathnam, learned counsel for the plaintiff, would submit that the Will Ex.B written up in a most odd manner in that number of pages are half-written; or one written or quarter-written. We have perused the Will Ex.B-5 and we find that what learned counsel for the plaintiff states is the factual position. But the question is, from this are we to straightaway infer that the Will Ex.B-5 is a fabricated one"