P RUTHRAKUMAR Vs. M MEGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit for partition in respect of the estate of one Narayanasamy filed before the court below resulted in dismissal accepting the contention of the fifth respondent that the said Narayanasamy did not die intestate and that he executed a Will bequeathing the properties in his name on 16.8.1990. While so doing, it found that the scribe who was a lawyer had been examined as D.W.3 and one of the witnesses to the Will was daughter of the testator, who has been examined as D.W.2 had given cogent evidence touching upon the genuineness of the Will.

(2.) THE trial Court itself undertook the task of comparison of signatures in the Will and an admitted document, where the plaintiff's mother had executed a mortgage deed under Ex.A.10 dated 29.10.1969, in which the deceased Narayanasamy had figured as a witness and found the signatures seemed genuine. THE suit was accordingly dismissed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for appellants strenuously contends that Narayanasmy could not have thought of disinheriting the plaintiffs, who had lost their father during their infancy and the plaintiffs would have been definitely provided for, if he had actually written a Will.