The propounder of the will has to remove all the suspicious circumstances attending on the execution of the Will.

P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE first appellant and the respondent are brothers and sons of late j. D. M. Din. Their father died on 25-10-1970 at Raichur, survived by his two sons, mentioned above, a foster daughter Premalatha leaving a house bearing no. 3-6-423 situated at Himayatnagar, Hyderabad together with furniture and other moveables in the said house. Although he was a permanent resident of hyderabad, he went to Raichur to stay with the first appellant one-and-half years prior to his death i. e. , on 25-3-1970. During his life-time he voluntarily executed a Will dated 15-2-1970 in a sound and disposing state of mind. As the parties are Christians, the first appellant filed O. S. No. 6 of 1981 renumbered as o. S. No. 147 of 1981 under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act for the issue of a Probate or Succession Certificate on the basis of the said Will against the respondent. The first appellant examined three more witnesses besides examining himself as P. W. 1 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-44; while the respondent examined three witnesses besides examining himelf as D. W. 1 and marked exs. B-1 to B-52. The trial Court on a consideration of the entire evidence on record dismissed the said suit holding that the first appellant had failed to prove the disputed Will (Exa-1) as a true and genuine Will and as such, he is not entitled for the grant of probate. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, this appeal. C. C. CA. No. 44 of 1984:

( 2 ) THE first appellant in C. C. C. A. No. 28 of 1987 is the first appellant in this appeal. The respondent filed O. S. No. 176 of 1976 which was later re-numbered as OS. No. 5 of 1982 against the first appellant for partition and separate possession of his half share in the house bearing No. 3-6-423 situated at himayatnagar, Hyderabad consisting of ground floor and first floor together with Out-Houses and open space.

( 3 ) THE case of the respondent is that the plaint schedule property was owned by his father late J. D. M. Din who died on 25-3-1970 intestate and as such, he is entitled to a half share in the said property along with his brother, the first appellant. He examined 4 witnesses including himself as P. W. 1 and marked exs. A-1 to A-66; while the first appellant examined himself as D. W. 1 and marked Exs. B-1 to B-124. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence this appeal.

( 4 ) THE facts which are not in dispute may be narrated. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in O. S. No. 6 of 1981. The first appellant is the elder brother of the respondent. Their father J. D. M. Din died on 25-3-1970 at Raichur in gulbarga District. Their mother pre-deceased their father on 11-12-1954. The respondent who is the younger brother studied Medicine and also married Dr. Lilly Abraham at Vijayawada in the year 1934. He worked in the Indian Navy for sometime. He worked at Nizamabad and other places before he settled down in U. K. in the year 1965. The first appellant joined the Hyderabad Army in the year 1941. He retired from the Army having worked for about a decade. Later he settled down-in Raichur and started business under the na me of Raj agricultural and Machinery Company. He was appointed as Commandant of home Guards and was kept in-charge of Raichur District. He purch ised a site of 1400 sq. yards at Raichur and constructed a work shop and he data is that the purchase of site and the investment made in the business are out of his personal earnings. Their parents brought up a girl by name Premalatha and she remained as spinister. The respondent filed the suit for partition of the house property which was left by his father. The first respondent disputes his brother s right to claim a half share on the ground that his father left his last Will and testament where under he bequeathed the said house property to him with absolute rights. The lower Court tried both the suits and disposed c f them by separate judgments. As

Click Here to Read the rest of this document