Therefore, once an oral partition is not proved, the plaintiff being the daughter of Tharmalinga Padaiachi cannot be denied her legitimate share. It is also not made clear as to how the Tharmalinga Padaiachi enjoyed the properties, whether as his self acquisition or otherwise. In any event, the defendants who pleaded the execution of Will by the said Tharmalinga Padaiachi in favour of the second defendant should prove the same in the manner known to law. Both the Courts below, on appreciation of the evidence let in by parties, have found that the defendants have failed to prove the Will. It is found that there are serious contradictions between the witnesses deposed on the side of the defendants insofar as the the execution of the said Will. When there are suspicious circumstances, the defendants have to disprove the same by letting clear and cogent evidence proving such execution. In this case, both the Courts below pointed out that the defendants failed to discharge such onus. When such being the categorical findings rendered by both the courts below, based on the facts and circumstances and appreciation of evidence and more particularly when this Court does not find any perversity in such findings, I do not think that there is any need for interference with such concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below. After all, the plaintiff being the daughter of the said Tharmalinga Padaiachi sought for only 1/4th share and both the courts below have concurrently found in favour of the plaintiff and granted decree in respect of the suit property consisting of 31 items. It is not that the defendants are left without properties. On the other hand, they being the father and son are enjoying 3/4th share of suit properties while the plaintiff is given only 1/4th share.
