( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. 54 of 1980 in the Court of the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of her title to the plaint schedule property which is a house situated at Machilipatnam and for possession thereof after ejecting the defendants therefrom and for past and future profits and also the cost of a radio. The plaintiff alleges that she is the second wife of late K. Hanumantha Rao who was the owner of the suit property and claims the suit property under a Will dated 15-12-76 said to have been executed by Hanumantha Rao who died on 3-2-77. The first defendant is the first wife of Hanumantha Rao and defendants 2 to 5 are the tenants of the said house.

( 3 ) THE first defendant denied the Will said to have been executed by late Hanumantha Rao. She contended that the plaintiff is not the second wife of late Hanumantha Rao and so she will not get the property as persona designata even if the Will is proved. She denied the existance of that radio. Defendants 2 to 5 remained ex-parte.

( 4 ) THE lower court held that the Will said to have been executed by Hanumantha Rao is not true. It also held that the plaintiff does not get any right to his property as persona designata since she is not the second wife of that Hanumantha Rao and therefore, she is not entitled to the suit property. The lower Court further held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the radio was with the first defendant. Ultimately the lower Courtdismissed the suit against which this appeal is filed.

( 5 ) THE main controversy in this appeal is regarding the suit house situated at Machilipatnam which the plaintiff claims by virtue of a Will alleged to have been executed by late Hanumantha Rao. Before I consider the question regarding the genuineness of the Will and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the property under the Will, I will deal with one contention which has been urged in the lower Court during the trial of the suit i. e. , the suit house is a joint family house belonging to late Hanumantha Rao, his step mother and step brothers and therefore, Hanumantha Rao is not the absolute owner and so, he has no right to execute the Will in respect of this property. The step-mother and step brothers of late Hanumantha Rao executed a relinquishment deed which is marked as Ex. B-24 whereby they relinquished their rights in the property in favour of Hanumantha Rao. There is no contention in the written statement of the first defendant that Hanumantha Rao is not the absolute owner of the property and infact the first defendant who is examined as D. W. 3 had stated that Hanumantha Rao was the absolute owner of the property and therefore, the argument which was advanced in the lower Court by the defendant that hanumantha Rao is not the absolute owner of the property and that the relinquishment deed Ex. B-24 is only a nominal document which found favour with the lower Court is not correct. So I shall proceed on the basis that hanumantha Rao was the absolute owner of the suit property.

( 6 ) EX. A-3 is the Will dated 15-12-76 alleged to have been executed by Hanumantha Rao. The plaintiff s case is that late Hanumantha Rao sent the Will in a sealed cover and put it in an outer cover with a covering letter to her brother one Mr. Appaji, who is working as Professor in an Engineering College in Gujarat and Mr. Appaji went to Tirupathi and handed over that cover to the plaintiff and then the plaintiff opened that cover and found the Will and later on he went to Machilipatnam and met Hanumantha Rao in the last week of January, 1977 and questioned him as to why he had sent the Will through Appaji. Appaji who is examined as P. W. 4 had stated that Hanumantha Rao sent a cover to him in which there was a sealed cover and a letter Ex. A-4 and after going through the letter he went to Tirupathi and met his sister i. e. , the plaintiff and handed over the sealed cover to her. This l