IMMANENI PANDURANGA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE first defendant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the letters of administration granted in favour of the plaintiff to administer the suit properties under Ex. A. 1 will dated 9-1-1956. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal, briefly, are as follows:

( 2 ) ONE Stanley Anthony Corbett (hereinafter referred to as the testator or the executant ) died on 9-1-1979. The plaintiff and the first defendant are his sisters. Defendants 2 and 3 are the children of another deceased sister. The fourth defendant is the widow and defendants 5 to 9 are the children of the deceased brother of the executant. The parties are anglo-Indians.

( 3 ) IMMEDIATELY after the death of the testator, the plaintiff and the first defendant jointly filed O. P. No. 333 of 1979 on the file of the court of the chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 24-7-1979 for grant of letters of administration alleging that the testator died intestate. Later on, the plaintiff filed O. P. No. 24 of 1980 which is later on numbered as O. S. No. 241 of 1980 on the file of the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the grant of letters of administration in her favour alleging that she has discovered Ex. A. 1 will dated 9-1-1956 executed by her brother. Admittedly the testator died as a bachelor.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 remained ex parte. The other defendants contested the suit mainly disputing the genuineness of the will. It is pleaded in the written statement that the deceased testator expressed his desire to execute a will shortly before his death but before a counsel could be brought, he breathed his last; that the asset mentioned by the plaintiff is not the property of late S. A. Corbelt, the testator; that the land and other assets were acquired out of the provident fund and other assets of his father, late William corbett; that the testator was not the defacto owner of the property and he must be deemed to be a trustee holding the property for the benefit of all the heirs of late William Corbett and that Ex. A. 1 will is vitiated by undue influence exerted by the plaintiff. The other grounds mentioned in the written statement are that the dispositions are wholly unnatural in the context of the origin of the property; that the plaintiff co-operated with the first defendant in filing O. P. No. 333 of 1979 and for the first time the plaintiff produced the will on 17-10-1979 and sought to be transferred as a respondent in that O. P. ; that the circumstances under which the will has come to light are highly suspici ous and that the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the capacity of the deceased testator, the execution of the will and the attestation of the will in accordance with law.

( 5 ) THE learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court has framed the relevant issues and negatived the contention of the first defendant that the house situate in Marredpally, Secunderabad was constructed by the mother of the plaintiff and the first defendant out of the sum of Rs. 25,000/- received by her by way of gratuity etc. , after the death of William Corbett. He found that the said house is the self-acquired property of the testator; that Ex. A. 1 will dated 9-1-1956 executed by S. A. Corbett is a genuine will executed by him in a sound and disposing state of mind; that the valuation of the suit and the court-fee paid thereon are correct and that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for in the suit. Basing on those findings, he has decreed the suit granting letters of administration in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Ex. A. 1 will dated 9-1-1956.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the said decision, the first defendant has preferred this appeal.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant-first defendant argued that it is the duty of the plaintiff who is the propounder of the will to prove satisfactorily the capacity of the testator to execute the will, that it was duly executed and validly attested and that the testator was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document