Ex.A3. According to P.W.2, she is a document writer and further according to her, she came to know about the execution of Ex.A3 Will only on the date of execution and she had attested the same as directed by Chinnakkal @ Chinnammal and further she would state that she had not been solicited by Chinnakkal @ Chinnammal earlier to come and attest Ex.A2 Will on the date of the execution of the same. It is thus found that P.W.2 is only a chance witness and she had accordingly testified that she had attested the Will as directed by Chinnakkal @ Chinnammal. Further according to P.W.2, Chinnakkal @ Chinnammal had chosen to bequeath the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for the only reason that the plaintiff had been taken in adoption by her. As above pointed out, when the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish that he is the adopted son of Chinnakkal @ Chinnammal and been validly taken in adoption by her and the deed of adoption Ex.A2 is a true and valid document, all put together, when P.W.2 Omana is found to be a chance witness, her claim that she is already acquainted with Chinnakkal @ Chinnammal prior to Ex.A3 Will, however, her abovesaid claim being not buttressed by any acceptable and reliable materials, be that as it may, when it is noted that Karuppusamy is the common attestor to both Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 documents, as rightly concluded by the first appellate court and rightly contended by the defendant's cousnel, the plaintiff should have endeavored to examine the attestor Karrupusamy to sustain his case. When it is found that Chinnakkal @ Chinnammal was aged about more than 70 years at the time of the adoption as well as at the time of execution Ex.A3 Will and when in Ex.A3 Will, she has been stated to be aged about 76 years and when according to the defendant, two years prior to her death, she was physically and mentally disabled and not in a position/condition to move due to various physical and mental infirmities and when according to the defendant, Chinnakkal @ Chinnammal may have been impersonated by somebody at the instance of the plaintiff, to accomplish the task of creating Exs.A2 and A3 documents and on that footing, when Exs.A2 and A3 are being challenged by the defendant as false and fabricated documents and when the claim of P.W.2 that she is acquainted with Chinnakkal @ Chinnammal prior to Ex.A3 Will is not substantiated by acceptable and reliable materials on the part of the plaintiff and when P.W.2 is found to be a chance witness and when she had not been solicited by Chinnakkal @ Chinnammal to stand as an attestor to Ex.A3 Will and when the evidence adduced in the matter would go to show that it is only Karuppusamy who was brought by Chinnakkal @ Chinnammal at the time of the alleged execution of Exs.A2 and A3 documents and when as above pointed out, as per the evidence of P.W.2, Chinnakkal @ Chinnammal intended to give the suit property only to her adopted son and when the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish that he is the adopted son of Chinnakkal @ Chinnammal, in such view of the matter, resultantly
