The defendants in O.S.No.21 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, are the appellants herein.

2. The suit was filed for declaration of title and for injunction with regard to item No.1 and for recovery of possession of item No.2.

3. The allegations in the plaint go to show that the schedule property belonged to one K.V.G. Murthy having purchased item No.1 from one P.Subba Rao and item No.2 was assigned by the Government. The plaintiff is the brother’s son of the said K.V.G. Murthy, who executed a Will on 30.09.1992 bequeathing the schedule properties to the plaintiff and died on 08.10.1992. The plaintiff got possession of item No.1. The 1st defendant is the wife of the second defendant and they have no right over the schedule property. The 1st defendant is an orphan and without any right taking advantage that she worked as a maid servant for sometime in the house of deceased K.V.G. Murhty forcibly took possession of item No.2 of the schedule property. Under the above circumstances, the suit was filed after issuing a legal notice.

4. The defendants filed a written statement. The ownership of K.V.G. Murthy in the schedule properties is admitted. The Will in favour of the plaintiff is disputed. The 1st defendant is the wife of the 2nd defendant and they disputed that they have no right over the schedule properties. The allegation that the 1st defendant is an orphan is defamatory and it is coined for the purpose of the suit and it is nothing but blasphemy to call the daughter of K.V.G. Murhty as his maid servant. It is disputed that the 2nd defendant taking advantage of his position as a Police Constable, has been threatening the plaintiff to take forcible possession of the item No.2 of the schedule properties. The 1st defendant has become the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties after the death of her father on 08.10.1992. They also disputed that the plaintiff got issued a notice to the defendants on 20.12.1992 and they evaded to receive the notice. Late K.V.Guru Murhty was an Ex-service man who had joined the Police Force after his discharge from the army. He was assigned the schedule properties by the Government and the super structures were put up by him. His wife Mangamma died on 03.04.1981. The 1st defendant is the only child of K.V.G. Murthy and Mangamma. K.V.G. Murthy who had retired from service in 1978 performed the marriage of the 1st defendant with the 2nd defendant on 22.02.1984. In the last week of September, 1992 the said Gurumurthy was complaining of some uneasiness and he informed the defendants that he would go to Tirupati for medical check up and expert treatment if it is necessary. He returned to his village on 02.10.1992 and informed the defendants that he has no specific complaint and the uneasiness was due to old age. K.V.G. Murthy at one time in 1990 wanted to sell away his item No.1 of the schedule to one Subba Rao of Sathyaveedu and executed a sale deed in his favour. But, K.V.G. Murthy had executed a gift deed in favour of the 1st defendant on 10.01.1986. Having come to know about the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff, the said Subba Rao had sold back the item purchased by him to K.V.G. Murthy himself. In view of the gift deed, where the old man had himself acknowledged the 1st defendant to be his daughter, it is ridiculous on the part of the plaintiff to call her an orphan and one time maidservant of the late K.V.G. Murthy. The said K.V.G. Murthy had no quarrel with his daughter and son-in-law and he had no need to execute any Will in favour of the plaintiff. The Will filed in the Court must be a rank forgery. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. No rejoinder has been filed by the plaintiff disputing the allegations in the written statement.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed as many as nine issues, as follows:

1) Whether the 1st defendant is the daughter of late K.V. Gurumurthy?

2) Whether the K.V. Gur