dated 13.09.1974 was rejected as the source of title of the father, Appadurai, though Ex.B14, patta stands in the name of Munichi Ammal. However, the Trial Court found that none of the attesting witnesses were examined to prove the Will and especially, when the 1st defendant had denied Ex.B42, Will to be forged. Taking note of Ex.B2 and Ex.B12, patta in the name of the 1st defendant, the Courts below held that items 2 and 3 are properties belonging to the 1st defendant and consequent to his demise, the defendants 5 to 7 are entitled to it and that they are not joint family properties. Moreover, when Ex.B14, patta stands in the name of Munichi Ammal, in the absence of proof of Will by examining atleast one of the attesting witnesses, it cannot be said that the Will has to be accepted and consequentially, the properties, namely, items 2 & 3 are to be declared as separate properties of the 1st defendant. In fact, the claim is made in respect of these two items namely, items 2 & 3 under an oral gift which also has not been proved. Therefore, in so far as these items, the judgment and decree of the Courts below are to be necessarily set aside, especially when having held that the Will was not proved in accordance with law, the Courts below have erroneously held that the property was the separate property of the 1st defendant and it cannot be treated as joint family property.
