1. Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, the learned Counsel representing the appellant and Sri N.Sriram Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent.

2. This Court on 18.12.1998, made the following order: "In view of the substantial questions of law raised in para 17(a) to (e) of the memorandum of grounds of appeal, the second appeal is admitted." The said grounds read as under:

a) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is in accordance with the provisions of Order 41 of CPC when it failed to consider and framed the issues to be decided in the appeal in the light of Order 41 of CPC.

b) Whether the decree and judgment of the lower appellate Court is correct when it had reversed the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court based on oral evidence, exceeding the powers conferred under Section 107 of CPC.

c) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in arriving at a conclusion that Ex.B1 Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the said circumstances are not shattered by the evidence adduced by the defendant.

d) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in reversing the well considered findings of the trial Court without considering the oral evidence independently.

e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for in the circumstances of the present case.

3. The appellant/defendant in the suit O.S.No.59 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali died and his legal representatives were brought on record, who are at present prosecuting the second appeal. The respondent/plaintiff in the said suit, which was originally instituted as O.S.No.664 of 1983 on the file of the PDMC, Tenali, filed suit for declaration of title relating to plaint schedule properties and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The Court of first instance, in the light of respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues recording the evidence of P.W.1 and D.Ws.1 to 4 and marking Exs.A1, A2 and Exs.B1, ultimately dismissed the suit giving liberty to the plaintiff to file a separate suit for maintenance as against the properties left by her husband in the hands of defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of appeal A.S.No.85 of 1992 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur and the appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the appeal to be allowed in part and the decree and judgment in O.S.No.59 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali (O.S.No.664 of 1983 on the file of PDMC, Tenali) dated 25.3.1992 be set aside and the suit is decreed declaring the title of the plaintiff to the plaint schedule properties of Item Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 and dismissed the suit in relation to item No.4 and the parties were directed to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is preferred.

4. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel representing appellant had taken this Court to the respective pleadings of the parties and the reasons recorded by the Court of first instance and held that without proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the said findings had been reversed by the appellate Court. The counsel had also taken this Court through the findings recorded by both the Courts below and also placed strong reliance on certain decisions to convince this Court that substantial questions of law on the strength of which the second appeal is admitted, much arise for consideration in the second appeal.

5. Per contra, Sri Sriram Murthy, learned counsel representing respondent would maintain that the relationship of respondent/plaintiff with her deceased husband and her status being wife is not in controversy, therefore, the appellate Court is well justified in recording reasons and revers