( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and order passed in O. S. No. 86 of 1977 by the learned Additional subordinate Judge, Chittoor, on 11-7-1984.

( 2 ) THE appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for partition in 1977. Alia Nadipanna alias venkata Reddy (appellant s father) and a. Chinnabba alias Narayana Reddy were brothers. The latter died in 1947 without heirs and the former died in 1961 leaving behind him a widow Achamma, two sons (Defendants 1 and 2) and two daughters, the mother of the 3rd defendant and the plaintiff. The mother of the 3rd defendant died in 1940 and the widow Achamma died in 1969. The joint family possessed immovable properties and moveble assets and cash at the time of the death of the appellant s father. The appellant and the 3rd respondent (3rd defendant) were each entitled to 1/30th share in all the properties of the joint family on the death of A. Nadipanna. After the death of the appellant s father, the appellant and the 4th respondent (4th defendant) were in joint possession of all the properties of the joint family. In about 1963, the properties were divided between the two branches of a. Narayana Reddy and A. Nadipanna and after such division, the appellant and the respondents 1 to 3 were in joint enjoyment of the properties allotted to their branch as co-owner. The appellant s father s case is that the properties mentioned in b schedule were acquired with the income from the a Schedule properties. The properties in the c Schedule belonged to all the co- owners i. e. , the appellant and the Respondents 1 to 3. The appellant s mother died in 1969 as a consequence of which the appellant and the 3rd respondent each became entitled to 1/12th share in the plaint schedule properties and on the other hand the Respondents 1 and 2 each became entitled to 5/12th share. The appellant and the 3rd respondent continued to be in joint enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties even after 1969. The appellant, therefore, filed a suit claiming 1/12th share in the suit properties.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, the Respondents 1 and 2 contended that A. Nadipanna alias venkat Reddy executed a Will during his life time on 24-5-1960 bequeathing his share in all the joint family properties in favour of his sons, while he was in sound and disposing state of mind out of his own free will and volition. Under the Will, he directed his sons to maintain and look after his wife during her life time. As per the directions of the will, Respondents 1 and 2 performed their duties to the utmost satisfaction of their mother till her death in 1969. They were regularly paying Rs. 100/- to the appellant every year as per the wish of the testator besides giving presents to her on account of love and affection towards her.

( 4 ) TWO points precisely emerge for court s consideration in this appeal. Firstly, whether the parties are estopped from claiming any share in the suit schedule properties having regard to the fact that a settlement had already been made at an earlier stage with the consent of all the parties concerned and secondly whether the Will alleged to have been executed by a. Nadipanna alias Venkata Reddy is legal, valid and binding on the parties to the present proceedings in the light of the proposition that all the properties in question were ancestral properties in the hands of the deceased A. Nadipanna and were not the self acquired properties of the deceased a. Nadipanna.

( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge has considered various aspects of these two controversies in issues Nos. 6 and 9. Since the controversies before this Court are in a very narrow compass, this Court need not examine the entire gamut of oral and documentary evidence.

( 6 ) ON Issue No. 6, the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment unfortunately has not given any clear finding whether the Will in question is legal and valid. There were two different and specific aspects relating to the Will which were required to be examined. The firs