The execution of a will must be proved by clear and satisfactory evidence.

( 1 ) ALL the three appeals and the revision petition which are before us arise out of a suit brought by the minor plaintiffs against Narukula Venkayya and his wife Rangamma in the Zilla Court, Warangal. These plaintiffs are the grandsons of one Nuna Ramayya. who died leaving surviving him widow Nagamma and a son by the first wife, Venkayya, the father of the plaintiffs. It is common ground that after his marriage with Nagamma, Ramayya became separate from his son both in residence and food and that they used to cultivate their lands separately. According to the defendants, this was in consequence of partition between the father and the son. This position is not accepted by the plaintiffs who attribute it to mere administrative convenience, but their previous plaint filed in the Madhira Court through their maternal grand-father contains clear admission to that effect. As Nagamma had no issue she brought up her sisters daughter. Rangamma, defendant No. 2, and got her married to 1st defendant. Both the defendants were living with her during the life-time of Ramayya. After the death of Ramayya which took place two years prior to the death of plaintiffs father, Nagamma was found in possession of the property left by Rarnayya. She however died in 1351 F. Plaintiffs claim that they got into possession of the immovable property thereafter but were subsequently dispossessed by defendants 1 and 2. This the defendants do not admit. Their contention is that Ramayya during his lifetime gifted away his properly, which included a moiety of what was once the ancestral property, to Nagamma under a registered gift deed in the year 1343 F. From that time onwards Nagamma was in possession of the gift property. She executed a with of the same in favour of defendants 1 and 2 as a result of which defendants as legatees and defendant No. 1 also as the illation son-in-law of Ramayya acquired an indefeasible right and continued in possession of the property. Their further contention is that the schedules of : moveable property filed by the plaintiffs are not correct. Plaintiffs categorically deny the factum of gift made by Ramayya and the testamentary disposition of Nagamma and her competence to make the: same. They claim the suit property as the surviving copartners or heirs of Rarnayya and also in the alternative as the nearest heirs of Nagamma herself. On these pleadings, eleven issues were settled. The trial Court found that the gift in favour of Nagamma was fully proved but not her will and as no title could pass to any of the defendants on that account the learned Judge decreed the claim of the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court however modified the decree in relation to mesne profits and disallowed the claim to movables which according to it was not established. Aggrieved by this decree both the parties have come in appeal, the defendants appeal being S. A. No. 558/50 and that of the plaintiffs" being S. A. No. 64/51, The contest between the parties does not end at this. The plaintiffs in schedule A committed two mistakes. One is a mistake as to the area and the other as to the survey number. An area of Ac, 33 1/2 instead of S3 1/2 guntas was-entered in relation to S. No. 526/3 and Survey No. 524/4 instead of survey No. 529/4 was wrongly entered in the schedule A and these mistakes were obvious from the gift deed relied on by the defendants themselves. These being accidental slips the trial Court, on the application of the plaintiffs ordered correction and the necessary amendment in the decree. As a result the defendants have come in revision which is No. 264/4/51-52. There is another appeal preferred by the defendants and this is directed against the order passed in relation to mesne profits and this appeal is 107/3/51. This judgment will govern all these proceedings.

( 2 ) APPEALS S. A. Nos. 558/50 and 64/51 involve only questions of fact on which both the Courts below are concurrent to a great extent. Such appeals would have been incompet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document