Bellie, J. - (1.) GENUINENESS of a will is in question in this second appeal. The defendant Veerayiammal is the appellant here.
(2.) THE suit was filed on the following allegations: The suit property originally belonged to one Ramasami Pillai. He married one Sivabagyam but within sixty days of the marriage they separated and Ramasami Pillai was living with Ponnusamy Pillai a son of one of his brothers. The first plaintiff Vaiyali is the son of Ramasami Pillai's an other brother. While so Ramasami Pillai executed a will dated 21.12.1963 bequeathing the suit properties to the first plaintiff Vaiyali and Ponnusami Pillai. Ponnusami Pillai died. Thereafter Ramasami Pillai was living with the heirs of Ponnusamy Pillai viz., plaintiffs 2 and 3. Ramasami Pillai's Brother's daughter Veerayi defendant was living in Pendamangalam. While Ramasami Pillai was living with her for some time and was not in a sound and disposing state of mind, she and her husband created a false will purporting to have been executed by Ramasami Pillai on 16.1.1979. Ramasami Pillai died on 18.1.1979 itself. Originally the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the suit property belongs to them and for pursuant injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession. It appears an interim injunction petition filed by them was dismissed and thereafter alleging that after the dismissal of the petition the defendant has trespassed into the properties the plaintiffs have got the plaint amended and prayed for possession of the properties. As against this the defendant contended that as the plaintiffs did not take proper care of Ramasami Pillai he while he was in a sound and disposing state of mind executed a registered will in favour of the defendant on 16.1.1979 revoking the earlier will. After the death of Ramasami on 18.1.1979 the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the properties. The plaintiffs were never in possession of the properties at any time. As the will executed in favour of the defendant is the last will of Ramasami Pillai the plaintiffs will not have right in the property. Therefore the suit must be dismissed.
(3.) THE trial Court (District Munsif, Namakkal) believed the case of the defendant and held that the will in question which is Ex.B1 dated 16.1.1979 is true and genuine and it was executed while Ramasami Pillai was in a sound and disposing state of mind and therefore only the defendant will be entitled to the suit property and the plaintiffs will have no right. On these findings he dismissed the suit with costs.;