( 1 ) THIS Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20-04-1996, in o. S. No. 17 of 1989, passed by the subordinate Judge at Rajampet, Cuddapah district.

( 2 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for declaration of right and title of the plaintiff and the fifth defendant over plaint A and B schedule properties, for delivery of possession thereof after evicting the defendants 1 to 4 and for mesne profits.

( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

( 4 ) THE suit was originally instituted by one sridharam Venkataramaiah, who died during the pendency of the trial. Hence, the second plaintiff came on record as legatee of the deceased first plaintiff through a Will, dated 17-04-1989, and continued the suit and consequently, the plaint was also amended. Inasmuch as the original plaintiff died, the averments made in the original plaint are of not much significant and since the second plaintiff who stepped into the shoes of the deceased first plaintiff as legatee, the averments made in the amended plaint that are more relevant, in brief, are as under.

( 5 ) THE mother of one Sridharam murthamma was in possession of plaint a-schedule property, which was given by her parents towards pasupu Kunkam ; that she was closely acquainted with the first defendant who was a Medical Practitioner and used to visit his clinic and take treatment from him; that the plaint schedule properties were stridhana properties" of Murthamma and hence she was the absolute owner thereof; that she died on 12-12-1988 leaving the plaint schedule properties; that the deceased first plaintiff and the fifth defendant being the legal heirs are entitled to the plaint schedule properties left by the said murthamma; that the first defendant was interfering with the rights of the deceased first plaintiff unjustly; that the defendants 1 to 4 have no manner of right or interest in the plaint schedule properties; that defendants 2 and 4 who were said to be in possession were refusing to vacate some items of the plaint schedule properties and that the deceased first plaintiff and the fifth defendant alone were entitled to the plaint schedule properties as legal heirs of said Murthamma.

( 6 ) AT the outset, it is to be noted that though it is the case of the deceased first plaintiff that the plaint schedule properties were the properties gifted to one murthamma by her parents by way of pasupu Kunkam , those properties are to be treated as stridhana properties . It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the first plaintiff, who died during the pendency of trial, and the fifth defendant, who are no other than the brother and sister, were entitled to a share under sub-section (1) of section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (for brevity "the Act") inasmuch as the deceased first plaintiff would fall under the category of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Act.

( 7 ) AT this stage itself, it is significant to note that the fifth defendant had filed written statement in support of the contentions of the plaintiffs. But, she did not choose to examine herself in support of the contentions of the plaintiffs or herself.

( 8 ) THE main contention of the first defendant, who is the contesting party, is that one Murthamma got the plaint schedule properties by inheritance and not towards pasupu Kunkam , as contended by the plaintiffs, and bequeathed the plaint schedule properties in his favour by executing a Will, dated 25-10-1988, under ex. B-1.

( 9 ) THE Court below, in the light of the above-mentioned contentions, formulated the issues as under: (1) Whether the 2nd plaintiff is entitled for declaration of her right and possession of the suit properties? (2) To what relief?

( 10 ) THE Court below also framed additional issues as under:additional Issues, dated 25-11-1994: (1) Whether the Will, dt. 17-04-1989, is true, valid and binding on the defen