Proof of wills and complete estate requirement in partition suits defeated a partial partition claim and benami plea.

A Will propounded by defendants must be proved in the manner required for attested documents when attestors are unavailable: Section 69 evidence must identify the handwriting of at least one attesting witness and the testator's signature, and the proof of both Wills was found insufficient. In partition litigation, the entire available estate must be included; a plaintiff cannot seek partition of only part of the property where another inheritable share forms part of the estate. The benami plea also failed because the statutory presumption under Section 3(2) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 was not displaced by reliable evidence. The suit was therefore held bad for partial partition and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the defendants proved the Wills propounded by them in accordance with law. (ii) Whether the suit was bad for partial partition.

Issue (i): Whether the defendants proved the Wills propounded by them in accordance with law.

Analysis: The Will dated 22.06.1987 had to be proved in the manner prescribed for attested documents when the attestors were unavailable. Proof under Section 69 required evidence identifying the handwriting of at least one attesting witness and the signature of the testator. The witness examined did not identify the attesting witness's signature in the original Will, and the Will dated 18.05.1991 was also not satisfactorily established by the evidence of the attesting witness examined.

Conclusion: The Wills were not proved in accordance with law, and this contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was bad for partial partition.

Analysis: The suit was attacked on the footing that not all properties connected with the family estate were included. The Court held that the plaintiff could not omit part of the available estate and seek partition of only a portion of it. The plea that the suit related only to the estate of Kanagayal was rejected because Ayyasamy's inherited share also formed part of his estate, and the non-inclusion of properties standing in his name rendered the partition incomplete. The presumption under Section 3(2) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 was not displaced by the evidence relied upon by the appellant.

Conclusion: The suit was bad for partial partition, and this issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal succeeded, the decrees of the courts below were set aside, and the suit was dismissed as bad for partial partition.

Ratio Decidendi: In a partition suit, the whole available estate must be brought into litigation, and a benami plea cannot succeed without reliable proof sufficient to displace the statutory presumption.

---