ANBHAZHGAN Vs. THANGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction based on a Will dtd. 19/6/1996. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was originally owned by one Sreenivasa Chettiar, who is the father of the defendants. The said Sreenivasa Chettiar gave both his daughters on marriage and he and his wife were taken care by the plaintiffs who are none other than the sons of the younger brother of the said Sreenivasa Chettiar Considering the help rendered by the plaintiffs, the said Sreenivasa Chettiar is said to have executed a Will dtd. 19/6/1996 in favour of the plaintiffs and thereby had bequeathed the suit property in their favour. According to the plaintiffs, the said Sreenivasa Chettiar died on 15/4/1997 and thereafter the Will started operating in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the defendants started claiming right over the property and were not willing to act upon the Will that was executed in favour of the plaintiffs. Left with no other alternative, the suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

(2.) The defendants have denied the factum of the execution of Will dtd. 19/6/1996 by their father Sreenivasa Chettiar in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants have taken a categoric stand that the plaintiffs are attempting to knock of a valuable property by means of a fabricated and forged Will and hence they have sought for the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) The Trial Court on appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court and the appeal was allowed by judgment and decree dtd. 22/1/2016. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment of the lower Appellate Court have preferred the present Second Appeal.