This Court on 23-4-1999 made the following order:

"Admit in view of the substantial question of law involved in Ground Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the memorandum of appeal."

2. The substantial questions of law specified under Ground Nos.1, 2 and 3 read as hereunder:

(1) Is it permissible under law to ignore the provision under Section 14 (2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 inasmuch as the right of the vendor of 151 respondent is concerned in the light of decree in A.S. NO.19 of 1938 on the file of Sub-Judge, Bapatla dated 15-7 -1940?

(2) Whether it is legal to say that entire property vests with the vendor of the 151 respondent when it is decreed that Will dated 20-8-1922 which purports to have vested the entire property of Chennayya is not genuine in A.S. No.19/38 on the file of Sub Judge, Bapatla dated 15-7-1940?

(3) Is it legal to deny half share to the daughter of the deceased as per Section 10 of Hindu Succession Act along with the widow of the deceased since both of them are class-I heirs?

3. First respondent in this appeal, as plaintiff in the suit, instituted the suit O.S. No.89 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala, praying for the relief of declaration of plaintiff'