(1.) THESE two appeals have been filed against the common judgment passed by the learned single Judge dated 29. 1. 2001 in C. S. No. 1779 of 1993, hereinafter referred to as 'c. S. ' and T. O. S. No. 34 of 1999, hereinafter referred to as 't. O. S. '.
(2.) C. S. NO. 1779 of 1993 has been filed by three daughters of late Govindasamy Naidu claiming partition in respect of the property of Govindasamy Naidu, in whose name admittedly the property stood. Defendant No. 1 and late G. Madhavan were two sons of late Govindasamy Naidu. The legal heirs of G. Madhavan were impleaded as Defendants 2 to 5. According to the plaintiffs' case, their mother Mrs. G. Abranji Ammal, wife of Govindasamy Naidu, died intestate on 10. 5. 1982 and subsequently their father Govindasamy Naidu died on 15. 3. 1984. It has been stated in the suit for partition that the late parents of the plaintiffs had not executed any Will out of their own free will and volition and the first defendant in connivance with his brother late G. Madhavan procured a Will with a view to deprive the plaintiffs_ share in the disputed property. On the basis of such assertion, the plaintiffs claimed 1/5th share each and also mesne profits and other ancillary reliefs.
(3.) DEFENDANTS in their joint written statement filed in the month of August, 1996, while not disputing the fact that the property was that of Govindasamy Naidu and regarding the dates of death, took the plea that Govindasamy Naidu and his wife Abranji Ammal had jointly executed a registered Will dated 27. 1. 1982 whereunder the suit property had been bequeathed in favour of the first defendant and Madhavan, the other son. It was stated that the Will had been voluntarily executed. It was also disclosed that the first defendant had an accident, wherein one of his hands had been amputated and the brother Madhavan was not earning well and the plaintiffs were given in marriage and were in affluent circumstances and keeping in view all these, the parents had executed the Will in favour of two sons.