8.Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant vehemently contended that the Will executed by the said K.Pitchammal under Ex.B.10, dated 27.07.1992 has been proved by the defendant in accordance with law and that the findings of the trial Court are not sustainable. The learned counsel further submitted that the Will under Ex.B.10, dated 27.07.1992 is only with reference to the vacant site. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that the superstructure was put up by the defendant as the same is evident from various circumstances and that the trial Court has given finding ignoring the material evidence. Finally, the learned counsel submitted that the fact that the defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the superstructure is not in dispute and that therefore, the residential house put up by the defendant, namely, the building bearing Door No.25A should be allotted to him in equity. However, the learned counsel for the respondents would justify the conclusions of the trial Court, and he relied upon the findings given by the trial Court on every issue that were framed for consideration.
