( 1 ) THE defendant in O. S. No. 207 of 1978 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, tirupathi is the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the District judge, Chittoor in A. S. No. 163 of 1991, dated 13-2-1996 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent herein for partition of the properties and allotting 1/6th share to the respondent by reversing the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit, this second appeal has been preferred.

( 2 ) G. Anasuya, the plaintiff, g. Padmanabha Reddy, the defendant No. 1 and Savithramma-defendant No. 3 are the children of one late Narasimha Reddy who is the husband of second defendant-Rajamma. That Narsimha Reddy died intestate seven years before filing of the suit i. e. in the year 1970. Thereafter, plaintiff got issued a legal notice-Ex. A-1 on 28-10-1977 claiming partition of the family properties and allotment of 1/8th share to her and that the defendant No. 1 sent a reply notice-Ex. A-3 dated 10-11-1977 stating that the properties were bequeathed by his late father Narsimha reddy by executing an unregistered Will. Hence, she is not entitled for any share in the property. The plaintiff initially tiled the suit for partition of the family properties by metes and bounds and to allot 1/8th share to her in the properties of their father Narsimha reddy by contending that their late father never executed any will and it was brought into existence by the defendant since the testator signed in the will as Narsimha reddy, whereas he always used to sign as narsa Reddy. Defendant No. 1 as well as defendant No. 2 filed written statement stating that late Narsimha Reddy executed a will on 21-1-1964 bequeathing all his properties to defendant No. 1, his only son and as such the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the property as she was married in 1942. Defendant No. 3 did not take part in the proceeding and remained ex-parte. Subsequently, defendant No. 2 died (i. e. mother of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 ). Thereafter plaintiff filed a petition seeking amendment of the plaint claiming 1/6th share in the family properties.

( 3 ) ON the basis of above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a share in the suit properties and for division and for separate possession of the same?issue No. 2: Whether the Will dated 21-1-1964 executed by D. Narasimha Reddy alias Narasa Reddy in favour of 1st defendant is true, valid and legal and binding upon the Plaintiff?issue No. 3: In the event of partition whether the debts contracted by the 1st defendant as mentioned in the written statement are binding upon the Plaintiff? issue No. 4: In the event of partition whether a provision has to be made for the marriage expenses of 1st defendant s daughter?issue No. 5: Whether plaintiff has been in joint possession of suit properties along with the 1 st defendant?issue No. 6: Whether the court fee paid is not correct? issue No. 7: To what relief?

( 4 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff while she herself was examined as P. W. 1 and got marked documents Exs. A-1 to A-5, on behalf of the defendants four witnesses were examined and 29 documents were marked.

( 5 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 got himself examined as D. W. 1, and examined the scribe of the will as D. W. 2. D. W. 3 is the Attestor of the will. D. WAwas the son of the another attestor Dora Swamy Reddy.

( 6 ) ON appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Trial court believed the execution of the will and dismissed the suit.

( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred a. S. No. 163/91 before the appellate court. The appellate court through its judgment dated 13-2-1996 having not believed the execution of the Will, reversed the judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that the defendant did not satisfactorily explain the suspicious circumstances that came to light in the execution of the Will i. e. Will dated 21-1-