This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘the Act’ for brevity) against the Judgment and decree dated 6-3-2003 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ongole in O.P.No.134 of 1996.

2. Respondents 2 and 3 in the O.P. are the appellants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P.

3. Petitioner is the wife of the first respondent. The second respondent is said to be the divorced wife of late Umamaheswara Rao, who is the son of the petitioner and first respondent. The third respondent is the minor daughter of late Umamaheswara Rao. The deceased was in Government service. The fourth respondent is the appointing authority and the fifth respondent is the sub-post Master, Singarayakonda, where certain deposits are said to have been made by late Umamaheswara Rao.

4. The petitioner pleaded that her eldest son Umamaheswara Rao was married to the second respondent. According to her, the deceased filed O.P.No.43 of 1989 in the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Ongole for dissolution of his marriage with the second respondent and that the same was granted on 18-10-1989. The legal custody of the third respondent was said to have been granted to the deceased. She stated that thereafter her son married one Nagavardhini on 1-8-1990 and they too were not able to live together. This marriage also was said to have been dissolved through the order dated 6-9-1991 in O.P.No.66 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ongole. It was her case that her son executed a Will dated 5-1-1992 bequeathing his properties in favour of his daughter, the third respondent, his parents, the petitioner and the first respondent and his brothers and sisters. Umamaheswara Rao is said to have died on 29-1-1992. With these and other allegations, she filed O.P.No.134 of 1996 for grant of probate.

5. The O.P. was mainly contested by the third respondent on behalf of herself and the second respondent also. They disputed the execution of the Will. It was alleged that the Will was brought into existence with a view to deny the succession to properties left by late Umamaheswara Rao.

6. In support of her claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and filed documents Exs.A1 to A13. The second respondent was examined as R.W.1. The trial Court framed only one point namely, whether the Will dated 5-1-1992 executed by late Inkollu Umamaheswara Rao is genuine one and whether the petitioner in the O.P. is entitled for grant of probate in accordance with the Will. Though the Judgment under appeal, the trial Court decreed the O.P.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Satyanarayana Nimmagadda, submits that the O.P. filed for grant of probate was not maintainable at all in view of clear prohibition contained under sub-section (2) of Section 264 of the Act. He contends that despite the clear prohibition, the trial Court entertained the O.P. and proceeded to grant probate. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court did not have jurisdiction to deal with the immovable properties covered by a Will, in an application filed under the provisions of the Act. He also made several submissions touching the merits of the matter.

8. Sri Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the O.P. for grant of probate is certainly maintainable under Section 270 of the Act, particularly having regard to the purport of Sections 57 and 257 of the Act. He contends that even otherwise the O.P. can be treated as the one under Section 370 of the Act, and that there is nothing in law which prohibits the declaration of rights under a Will in an application filed under Section 270 of the Act.

9. The relationship of the parties and the facts referred to above are not in dispute. The O.P. was filed under Section 270 of the Act for grant of probate in respect of the Will, which is marked as Ex.A1. The first and foremost question that needs to b