L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J :- The 1st defendant in OS No.56 of 2010 filed this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 5.6.2012, passed by the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada.

2. The 1st respondent (for short 'the respondent') filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the appellant from executing any kind of document in favour of third parties, in any manner, effecting the limited rights of the respondent, being 16170th undivided share in the plaint schedule property. It was pleaded that Agraharapu Meena Rao, the paternal grandfather of himself and the appellant, was given 16/70th share with limited rights in the suit schedule property, under a registered settlement deed, dated 14.12.1957, executed by the Proprietor and Manager of Sri Venkateswara Salt Kotars, a Firm. He further pleaded that Meena Rao executed a Will, dated 17.4.1990, under Ex.A2, bequeathing his undivided share in the suit schedule property to the appellant and that the same was deposited with the Sub-Registrar, Kakinada, the 2nd respondent herein, on 25.6.1993.

3. The cause of action for the respondent to file the suit was stated to be the steps taken by the appellant and her husband to sell part of the suit schedule property, claiming that it has accrued to her under a Will, dated 2.6.1992, said to have been executed by Meena Rao. The respondent pleaded that he alone is entitled to the undivided share of late Meena Rao and that there was no basis for the appellant to claim rights over the same.

4. The appellant filed written statement, opposing the suit. She refuted the claim of the respondent that Meena Rao executed a Will in the year 1990. Her further plea was that Meena Rao executed a Will on 9.5.1993 (Ex.B1), in her favour, and thereby, the Will relied upon by the respondent, even if proved, stood cancelled.

5. The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment, dated 5.6.2012.

6. Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court committed serious error in recording findings on the Wills pleaded by the respondent, on the one hand, and the appellant, on the other hand. He contends that the very frame of relief in the suit is impermissible. Learned Counsel submits that the respondent failed to place the original of Ex.A2 before the trial Court and still a finding was recorded thereon. Learned Counsel further submits that certain observations made by the trial Court are contrary to the settled principles of law and the judgment and decree passed by it, cannot be sustained.

7. Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that though the suit was filed for the limited relief of perpetual injunction, the parties have gone in issue as regards validity of Wills also, and accordingly, the trial Court proceeded to decide the matter exhaustively. He contends that the appellant did not raise any objection, when the certified copy of the Will i.e., Ex.A2, was filed. It is also his case that the appellant failed to prove EX.B9.

8. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

(i) "Whether the Wills dated 17.4.1990 and 9.5.1993 said to have been executed by Agraharapu Meenarao are true, valid and binding on the parties?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from ever executing any kind of document in favour of 3rd parties in any manner whatsoever affecting the limited rights of plaintiff's 16/70th undivided share in the plaint schedule property?"

9. To prove his case, the respondent deposed as PW1 and one of the attestors of the Will relied upon by him, was examined as PW2. He filed EXs. A1 to A16. On behalf of the appellant, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B9 were filed. The suit was decreed.

10. In view of the grounds pleaded by the appellant in the arguments advanced by the parties, this Court is of the view that the following points aris