The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of examining the consistency of a will with the testator's previous will, the credibility of witnesses, and the applicability of relevant provisions of the Registration Act in determining the genuineness of a will.

Sir Madhavan Nair.-

This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 27th November 1944, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur dated 27th October 1942.

[2] The appeal arises out of a suit (O.S. 38 of 1941) instituted by the appellants for a declaration that a will dated 11th March 1939, alleged to have been executed by their stepbrother one Ramalingayya, the husband of the respondent Achamma (since deceased), is not genuine. Ramalingayya died on 12th March 1939.

[3] The appellants also brought another suit (O. S. 25 of 1940) against Achamma, under S. 77, Registration Act, for a decree directing registration of a settlement deed dated 10th March 1939 said to have been executed in their favour by the aforesaid Ramalingayya.

[4] Both suits were tried and disposed of together by the trial Court. The Subordinate Judge held that both the settlement deed and the will were not genuine documents. He therefore dismissed O. S. 25 of 1940 relating to the settlement deed, and decreed O. S. 38 of 1941 relating to the will, declaring that the will is not a genuine document.

[5] The appellants appealed against the decree dismissing O. S. 25 of 1940, and the respondent, the widow of Ramalingayya, appealed against the decree in 0. S. 38 of 1941.

[6] Both appeals were heard together by the High Court. The learned Judges dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants, agreeing with the Subordinate Judge that the settlement deed was not genuine ; and allowed the appeal preferred by the widow, holding-differing from the Subordinate Judge - that the alleged will was proved to have been executed by the deceased. They stated "we have come to the conclusion that the former (settlement deed) is not genuine, while the latter (the will) may be accepted as having been duly executed by the deceased."

[7] The appellants applied for special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council in the settlement deed suit but the petition was dismissed.

[8] The present appeal, as stated before, relates to the alleged will. The widow Achamma (respondent) having died since the filing of the appeal, her adopted son, then a minor, was brought on record as her representative. He has now become a major and is the respondent before the Board.

[9] The only question for determination in the appeal is whether the will referred to above is genuine or not.

[10] One Padmanabhudu died in 1935. He was twice married. Ramalingayya the executant of the will was his son by his first wife, the appellants are his sons by his second wife. Soon after their father's death Ramalingayya and the appellants partitioned their joint family properties. The appellants are the immediate reversioners to the estate of the deceased Ramalingayya.

[11] It is common case that Ramalingayya was in poor health and suffered from tuberculosis and diabetes. In 1938 he became ill. He spent some months in a sanatorium at Rajahmundry. On 5th April 1938, before going to the sanatorium, he executed a registered will by which he gave absolutely to his wife 9 acres and 98 cents of land. He gave her also a restricted power of adoption and provided that if no adoption took place, or if the adoption did not stand, the rest of the property should go to the Andhra University. While he was in the sanatorium he executed on 26th August 1938, a registered document cancelling the will. He gave no reasons for cancelling it but his widow says it was cancelled because of her desire that he should give her unrestricted powers of adoption. In October 1938, Ramalingayya left the sanatorium and for some time lived in a village nearby. Then he went to his father-in-law's village. During this time his wife was living with him. It appears that in January or February 1939, he visited his village Rayakuduru for one day. Some time after, he again went to his village where he registered a sale-deed on 7th March. By this time his wife had been sent to Vizagapatam f