The defendants 1 and 2 who are husband and wife are the appellants. The respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs are legal heirs of late Jagannatham who is brother of the first defendant. Jagannatham, the first defendant and Padmarao were sons of late Venkat Swamy. Subject matter of the suit is house site at Malkajgiri of Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiffs filed the suit in the trial Court for partition of the said site between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs. Incidentally, the plaintiffs also sought for cancellation of Ex.A.3 Will dated 15.05.1971 said to have been executed by late Venkat Swamy and Ex.A.4 gift deed dated 27.11.1999 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and Ex.A.5 sale agreement-cum-general power of attorney dated 20.05.2002 executed in favour of 3rd defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 opposed the suit mainly on the strength of Ex.B.13 Will said to have been executed by late Venkat Swamy in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property. Both the Courts below considered the material on record and came to the conclusion that Ex.B.13 Will is not true; and consequently granted preliminary decree for partition.

2. In this second appeal, the appellants’ counsel contended that extraneous reasons were relied upon by the Courts below in rejecting truth of Ex.B.13 Will and proper grounds were not taken into consideration to uphold Ex.B.13 Will and that the said decision of the Courts below is contrary to law.

3. Entire decision in the present suit proceedings depend on truth of Ex.B.13 Will propounded by the defendants. Truth or otherwise of the Will is purely a question of fact based on assessment of evidence and circumstances together with probabilities of the case. It is purely a question of fact. Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that the Courts below considered the entire material on record in right direction and came to proper conclusion against Ex.B.13 Will.

4. Ex.B.13 is an unregistered Will. It is typed on white paper. Name of the person who typed the same is not mentioned. Name of the person who drafted the same is not mentioned. Out of the two attestors in Ex.B.13, one of the attestors is examined as D.W.5. The other attestor by name Rambabu is stated to be no more. The said Rambabu is no other than brother of the 2nd defendant and brother-in-law of the 1st defendant. Late Venkat Swamy was having two properties (i.e.) the plaint schedule site at Malkajgiri and another house at Secunderabad. Even though in Ex.B.13 Will Venkat Swamy described himself as a person suffering from some ailment, he did not prefer to execute the Will in respect of both of his properties. Ex.B.13 is only in respect of the plaint schedule property and not in respect of the house property at Secunderabad. In case, a person intended to make arrangement in relation to his properties after his death, that person will not in the natural course make arrangement with reference to only part of his estate and not whole of his estate. Ex.A.9 is partition deed entered into between the first defendant, late Jagannatham and their mother, subsequent to death of Venkat Swamy. Ex.A9 related to house property at Secunderabad. Ex.A.9 partition deed unequivocally resites that Venkat Swamy died intestate. It is an admission by all the family members including the 1st defendant that Venkat Swamy died without executing any Will. It cannot be taken as a recital with reference to the property that was being divided under the partition deed. Under Ex.B.13, the entire plaint schedule site was stated to have been bequeathed to the 1st defendant on the ground that he was obedient to Venkat Swamy. It is not stated in Ex.B.13 that the other brothers including Jagannatham were not obedient or were revolting against Venkat Swamy. By then, Padma Rao was alive and was suffering from cancer. He died subsequent to the date of Ex.B.13 and prior to the dat