T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the decree and judgment dated 27.8.1994 in A.S. No. 5 of 1992 on the file of Court of III Additional District Judge, Guntur, confirming the decree and judgment dated 16.12.1991 in O.S. No. 105 of 1985 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tenali, dismissing the suit filed for declaration and recovery of possession. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

2. The plaintiff is the third daughter of late Janaswami Hanumantharao and Subhadramma of Kolluru Village. The defendant is the sister's son of the plaintiff. Hanumantharao executed a registered Will dated 25.8.1973 bequeathing the suit schedule property and some other properties in favour of his wife, by name, Subhadramma, with absolute rights. Subhadramma died on 30.10.1985. The case of the plaintiff is that she used to look after her mother-Subhadramma during her life time and out of love and affection her mother bequeathed the suit schedule property in her favour of the plaintiff by way of registered Will dated 28.10.1985. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant, aggrieved by the execution of the Will dated 28.10.1985 in favour of the plaintiff, has been creating troubles for enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit to declare her as absolute owner of the suit schedule property, basing on the Will dated 28.10.1985, and consequential relief of recovery of possession.

3. The defendant filed written statement admitting inter se relationship between the parties inter alia contending that the Will dated 28.10.1985 set up by the plaintiff is not valid document. Subhadramma, who is the maternal grandmother of the defendant, did not execute the Will dated 28.10.1985 in favour of the plaintiff. Due to ill-health, Subhadramma was not in conscious state of mind from the morning of 28.10.1985. The husband of the plaintiff evidently played fraud and by deceiving Subhadramma obtained her thumb impression on the papers and created the spurious document i.e., the Will dated 28.10.1985, taking the assistance of the Scribe and the Attestors. The husband of the plaintiff influenced the Sub-Registrar, Kolluru in getting the registration of the Will dated 28.10.1985. Subhadramma executed the Will dated 31.5.1982, in a sound and disposing state of mind, bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant, out of love and affection. The defendant performed the obsequies of Subhadramma. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration of her title and for possession of the plaint schedule property?

2. To what future profits if any is the plaintiff entitled?

3. Whether the Will dated 28.10.1985 executed by Subhadramma, the mother of the plaintiff, is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

4. Whether the Will dated 31.5.1982 executed by late Subhadramma is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?

5. To what relief?

5. To substantiate the case before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs. A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs. B1 to B17 and Exs. X1 to X8 were marked.

6. Basing on the oral, documentary evidence and other material available on record, the trial Court disbelieved the Will dated 28.10.1985 set up by the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1991 in O.S. No. 105 of 1985 passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali, preferred A.S. No. 5 of 1992 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Guntur. The learned appellate Judge, after reappraising the oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the decree and judgment dated 16.12.1991 in O.S.