(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiffs in O. S. No. 57 of 85 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, against the dismissal of their suit filed for declaration, delivery of possession, injunction, and for accounting, preferred the above appeal.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs as set out in their plaint is briefly stated hereunder: THE suit properties and other properties originally belonged to Arumugha Mudaliar. His wife is Unnamalai Ammal. THEy had two daughters and a son by name Mangalam, Saraswathi and Jayasubramanian. Mangalam died about 15 years back. Her son is first defendant, whose son is second defendant. Saraswathi is the second plaintiff, whose son by name Senthilkumar is the first plaintiff. Unnamalai died 20 years back. Arumugha Mudaliar executed a deed of power of attorney in favour of the first defendant on 18. 12. 8 2, as he was unable to manage his affairs. THEreafter, it was duly revoked on 17. 7. 84 by means of a registered deed as Arumugha Mudalair was fit to manage his affairs. Arumugha Mudaliar s only son Jayasubramanian died without anyissues in August, 1982 leaving behind him his widow Saroja Ammal, 3rd defendant as his heir.
(3.) FIRST defendant issued a notice on 23. 1. 85 to the 2nd plaintiff and Saroja setting up a Will dated 13. 1. 85 said to have been executed by Arumugha Mudaliar. The second plaintiff waited for an amicable settlement. As nothing was fructified, she issued a reply on 17. 7. 85. After the revocation of the power of attorney deed on 17. 7. 84, after the adoption of first plaintiff on 18. 8. 84, in favour of the first plaintiff and after the registered Will dated 11. 10. 84, it is unnatural to expect Arumugha Mudaliar to execute a unregistered Will in favour of defendants, completely disinheriting plaintiffs and Saroja. The plaintiffs assert that no Will was executed by Arumugha mudaliar as alleged by first defendant. It is a rank forged one. In view of the attitude of the defendants, the plaintiffs have filed a suit claiming necessary relief.