(1) SUBSTITUTION is allowed if not allowed by previous order.

(2) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6/11/1985 passed by the A. P. High court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 70 of 1979. Defendants 2 to 7 in the partition suit OS No. 70 of 1970 are the appellants before us. respondent 1 filed the said OS No. 70 of 1970 in the court of learned Subordinate Judge, Tanuku for partition of B and C Schedule properties, inter alia, contending that she had inherited the share in the said B and C Schedule properties through Karunamma who was the daughter of Mark, the admitted owner of the property. The said respondent 1 also claimed title to the said property under a Will executed by her mother Karunamma. The contesting Defendants 2 to 7 who are appellants before this court, filed a written statement, inter alia, disputing the claim of the plaintiff. It was inter alia contended by the said contesting defendants that the Will executed by Karunamma was not a valid one. In any event, the plaintiff lost her title to the said property because of adverse possession exercised by Defendants 2 to 7.

(3) THE trial court did not accept the validity of the Will but dec