(1.) The sixth defendant is the appellant.
(2.) The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.25 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Krishnagiri for declaration of her title to the suit properties and for injunction on the basis of the Will dated 15.7.1992 alleged to have been executed by her alleged husband Che.Munisamy Chettiar. The sixth defendant, the appellant herein and other defendants contested the suit stating that the first respondent/plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife of their father Che.Munisamy Chettiar and the first respondent/plaintiff was the wife of Marimuthu Gounder and she got two daughters through him and she also admitted in other proceedings that she was the widow of Marimuthu Gounder and therefore, she cannot claim the status of the widow of Che.Munisamy Chettiar. They further contended that the alleged Will dated 15.7.1992 was not executed by their father and it was a forged document and the testator was not in a sound and disposing state of mind to execute the said document and there are various suspicious circumstances surrounding the document.
(3.) The Trial Court held that having regard to the long cohabitation between Munisamy Chettiar and the first respondent and the fact that the first respondent was admittedly living with Munisamy Chettiar for more than twenty years, led to the presumption that she was the wife of Munisamy Chettiar and the Will was proved in the manner known to law and one of the attesting witnesses was examined to prove the due execution of the Will and the Will was also a registered one and the first respondent/plaintiff also proved that subsequent to the execution of the Will, the testator Munisamy Chettiar executed sale deeds in favour of P.Ws.4 to 6 and Munisamy Chettiar died four years later and therefore, the Will was a genuine one and the first respondent/plaintiff got title to the property under the Will and decreed the suit. The lower appellate court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and hence, the second appeal.