Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J. : This appeal is brought by certificate on behalf of the plaintiff from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Appeal Suit No. 554 of 1959 dated August 22, 1963.

2. One, Gorantla Thataiah, as the sole plaintiff, filed O. S. No 2 of 1957 in the court of the Subordinate Judge. Bapatla for possession of certain properties which had been left by Gorantla Veeriah when he died issueless on June 24. 1939. Originally there were ten defendants in the suit. Defendant No. 1 is the maternal uncle of Veeriah and Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 are the sons of Defendant No 1. Defendants Nos. 4 to 8 were the alienees from Defendant No. 1 s family. Defendants Nos. 7 9 and 10 did not contest the suit. Defendant No. 8 died in the course of the suit and his legal representatives were added as Defendants 11 to 14. Defendants 1 to contested the suit on the ground that Defendant No. 1 became entitled to the properties of Veeriah under the will. Ex. B-4 dated June 17, 1939 which Veeriah executed in his favour. It was contended in the alternative that at the time when the reversion opened on the death of Veeriah s another Rattamma on October 1, 1956. Defendant No. 1 was the nearest heir and not the plaintiff under the Hindu Succession tot (XXX of 1956) which had come into force on October 17, 1956. The Additional Subordinate Judge Bapatla held that the will was true and genuine but it was not legally valid as it was executed by Veeriah at a time when he had no testamentary capacity. It was also held that the Hindu Succession Act did not apply to the facts of the case. The Additional Subordinate fudge accordingly granted a decree for possession of properties except item No. 4 in favour of the plaintiff as against Defendants Nos. 1 to 3, 6, 7 and 11 to 14. Defendants 1 to 3, 7, 11 and 13 took the matter in appeal to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff also preferred a Memorandum of Cross Objections to the extent the trial Court s decree was against him. By its judgment dated August 22, 1963, the High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the will, Ex. B-4 was executed by Veeriah in a sound and disposing state of mind and that the will was not only true but was valid and binding upon the plaintiff. The High Court accordingly dismissed the suit. The Memorandum of Cross Objections was also dismissed.

3. The first question to be considered in this appeal is whether the will, Ex. B-4 was true and genuine "and was executed by Veeriah in sound and disposing state of mind.

4. It is not disputed that one Gangiah died leaving his widow Rattamma and his only son through her called Veeriah and a young daughter. The girl died without leaving any issue in the year 1932. Veeriah was a little boy and it is not disputed that he was below average in intelligence and understanding. Rattamma along with her son took up residence with her brother, Defendant No. 1 who was a man of great wealth and influence in the village, owning fifty acres of land and outstanding credits to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-. Rattamma s husband had left properties to the extent of 13 acres of land. In spite of owning so much property Veeriah was engaged as a cow-troy in tending cattle. In June 1939, he had an attack of typhoid, became bed-ridden and ultimately died of the disease on June 24, 1939. The case of the contesting defendants was that Veeriah executed the will. Ex. B-4 on June 17, 1939 that D. W. 4 wrote it and nine witnesses attested it, but the will was not registered in Veeriah s lifetime. On October 15, 1939 defendant No. 1 and Rattamma presented the will, Ex B-4 before the Sub Registrar Chirala for registration. The Sub Registrar however, refused to register the will by his order, Ex. A-45 in W C 4 of 1939 Defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal before the District Registrar Guntur but the appeal was dismissed. Defendant No. l then filed O. S. No. 111 of 1940 in the court of District Munsif, Bapatla against Ramayya (father of defendants 9