L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J :- This letters patent appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.4.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in AS No.787 of 1983. That appeal, in turn, was filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1981 passed by the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole in OS No.56 of 1973. The 6th defendant in the suit is the appellant herein.

2. The facts, that gave rise to the filing of this letters patent appeal, in brief, are as under:

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

The plaintiff (1st respondent herein) claiming to be the adopted son of one, Sri Sangavarapu Subrahmanyam, filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. He pleaded that his adoptive father, the 1st defendant, is possessed of various items of ancestral properties and that in spite of his repeated demands, he did not effect partition. Four tenants of the properties were impleaded as defendants 2 to 5 in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died. Therefore, the plaintiff got the suit amended to be the one, for mere recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties, since the necessity for partition ceased to exist.

After the plaintiff took that step, Smt. Rukmini Devi (appellant herein) got herself impleaded as defendant No.6, claiming to be the second wife of Subrahmanyam. She has also pleaded that Subrahmanyam executed a deed of settlement (Ex.B9) in her favour in respect of Acs.7.55 cents of land of 'A' schedule. It was also her case that Subrahmanyam executed a Will, (Ex.B16), dated 26.7.1963, in her favour, bequeathing his properties.

The claim of the 6th defendant was opposed by the plaintiff. According to him, his adoptive mother predeceased his adoptive father, and there not being any other legal heirs, he became the absolute owner of the entire properties held by the erstwhile joint family.

Through its judgment dated 16.11.1981, the trial Court held that the alleged marriage between D1 and D6 is void on the ground that D6 had a subsisting marriage with another man, by the time she is said to have married D I. However, the deed of settlement, which was marked as Ex.B9, was found to be valid.

Plaintiff filed AS No.787 of 1983, feeling aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court, in relation to Ex.B9. A learned Single Judge of this Court, through judgment 11.4.1997, held the marriage between D1 and D6 valid, but Ex.B9 as void. Accordingly, a preliminary decree was passed allotting 1/4th share of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.6.

3. This appeal, under clause 15 of the letters patent, is preferred by the 6th defendant, Rukmini Devi. She has not only challenged. the very adoption of the plaintiff, but also the findings in AS No.787 of 1983, about Ex.B9.

4. During the pendency of the L.P.A., the 6th defendant died. Claiming to be a legatee of the 6th defendant, one Smt. Jampani Koteswaramma, W/o. Venkata Maheswara Rao, filed an application, to implead her as legal representative of the 6th defendant. Her claim is based upon a Will, said to have been executed by the 6th defendant, on 30.6.2003. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. He pleaded that the so-called Will is a fabricated one. Thereupon, this Court directed the trial Court to record a finding on the Will, dated 30.6.2003, after taking into account, the oral and documentary evidence, that may be adduced by the parties. Through its order dated 23.1.2012, the trial Court forwarded a finding holding that the Will, dated 30.6.2003 (marked as Ex.A1 in those proceedings), pleaded by the proposed legal representative is proved. Objections are filed by the plaintiff to the said finding.

5. Sri G. Pedda Babu learned Counsel for the 6th defendant submits that his client was married to Subrahmanyam and though the trial Court took the view that the marriage was void, the learned Single Judge of this Court held it