( 1 ) C. R. P. NO. 3982 of 2003 is preferred by the 6th Defendant in O. S. No. 821 of 1986 against the order of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 17-6-2003 refusing to receive two documents, which are described as Wills, in support of his evidence. C. R. P. No. 4349 of 2003 is also filed by the 6th defendant against the order of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 25-7- 2003 in review petition covered by I. A. No. 788 of 2003 in O. S. No. 821 of 1986.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner-6th defendant while getting herself examined as DW-2 in o. S. No. 821 of 1986 sought to mark two documents describing them as wills . The lower Court passed order on 17th June 2003 upholding the objection raised by the plaintiff and rejecting to receive those documents in evidence. Against the said order, she filed I. A. No. 788 of 2003 under Order 47 Rule 1 C. P. C. before the lower Court requesting to review the said order. The lower Court after considering the contents of the documents and the legal position came to a conclusion that there are no grounds in the application to review its order dated 17-6-2003. It ultimately dismissed the review petition on 25-7-2003. The revision petitioner questioned the said order through C. R. P. No. 4349 of 2003. Since the orders passed by the lower Court in O. S. No. 821 of 1986 and I. A. No. 788 of 2003 in O. S. No. 821 of 1986 relate to the same point, both the revisions are clubbed and this common order is passed.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFFS filed O. S. No. 821 of 1986 for partition of the suit schedule properties and to put them in possession of 1/5th share each, after dividing the property by metes and bounds. The defendants, including the revision petitioner-6th defendant, resisted the suit. After commencement of trial, the plaintiffs evidence was completed and the evidence of defendants was being recorded. The revision petitioner was examined as DW-2. During the chief-examination she sought to mark two documents describing them as wills . The plaintiffs raised objection for marking those documents by contending that though the documents are titled as wills , they cannot be treated as such. Therefore, they cannot be received and marked by the 6th defendant on her behalf.

( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the lower Court ought to have treated the documents as wills by taking into consideration the intention of the testator to give the properties mentioned in the documents to the persons therein after his life-time.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the lower Court ought to have taken into consideration the background of the parties and whether the contents of the document lead to a conclusion that they are the wills , even in the absence two essential ingredients. He further submitted that the absence of certain recitals in the document does not invalidate the document. He also submitted that the contents of the first document would lead to conclusion that it is a will and the contents of the second document discloses that it is a codicil. He therefore requested to direct the lower Court to receive the documents subject to objection if any at the time of the marking.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the contents of the two documents disclosed that the properties were bequeathed in the present time and there is no indication that they should come into operation after the life time of the alleged executant. In order to test the nature of the document the reading of all the contents is essential. The surrounding circumstances under which these two documents which excluded all other legal heirs of the executant have to be taken into consideration. The other circumstance that those documents do not contain any special reasons for giving the property to the sixth defendant in exclusion of all other legal heirs. He further submitted that the