The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of due execution and proof of a Will in succession cases, and the requirement for sufficient evidence to establish the validity of a Will.

JUDGMENT :

1. Whether Smt. Vunnava Nagarathnamma died leaving her estate for succession to be governed by law of succession or whether she left a Will ordering as to how and to whom her properties shall be distributed is the question that troubled the parties and was dribbled before the Courts below and finally reached this Court in the form of second appeal preferred by two out of the six plaintiffs in the suit.

2. 561 square yards of site with a building thereon in Block No.8 with Assessment No.14 in Sangadigunta of Guntur Town is the property in dispute. There was Sri Vunnava Ramalingam and his wife Smt. Vunnava Nagarathnamma. A registered sale deed dated 10.07.1952, the certified copy of which is Ex.A.9, is admitted on both sides as a document under which Smt. Vunnava Nagarathnamma purchased the plaint schedule property. Her husband died. During their wedlock, they were blessed with three daughters and a son. One such daughter was Bharathamma. She also died. Thus, there remained two daughters and a son. One daughter by name Smt. Dandamraju Jayalakshmamma filed O.S.No.110 of 2002 as against her sister Smt. P.Sundaramma and her brother Sri Vunnava Venkata Rao seeking partition of the above said property on the premise that their mother Smt. Vunnava Nagarathnamma died intestate and therefore in terms of law of succession each of her three surviving children would get 1/3rd share. Defendant No.1 contested the suit stating that her mother executed a registered Will dated 30.10.1995 as per Ex.B.1 whereunder the plaint schedule property was bequeathed to testator’s grandchildren who are the children of defendant No.1. Therefore, she claimed that properties were not available for partition. Defendant No.2, who is the brother of the plaintiff, contested the suit pleading that though the registered sale deed indicates the name of his mother as the owner of the property, the truth is that his mother had no income and the initial structures that were there in that property collapsed and utilizing his money the building was constructed and narrating other relevant facts he claimed title in himself and finally stated that neither the Will is correct nor the intestate succession claimed in the plaint is correct and he sought for dismissal of the suit. Be it noted, subsequent to the pleadings when the trial commenced in the suit, he filed a memo and represented to the Court that he gave up his defence and he agrees with the case pleaded by his sister as defendant No.1 and admits that his mother executed the registered Will.

3. In the written statement of defendant No.1 an objection was taken stating that since the bequest under the Will vested the property with two of the grandchildren of Smt. Vunnava Nagarathnamma and since they were not made parties to the suit, the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties. In those circumstances, the two legatees were impleaded as defendant Nos.3 and 4 by the plaintiff in the suit. While the suit filed by the sole plaintiff was pending, she died and her children came on record as plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 as her legal representatives and it is stated that the sole plaintiff died executing a registered Will dated 09.01.2006 as per Ex.A.8. Throughout the legal proceedings in all Courts the said Ex.A.8-Will was not sought to be proved by the plaintiffs.

4. In the above referred facts and circumstances of the case, learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Guntur framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property and the court fee paid is correct?

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits?

4. Whether the Will dt. 30.10.1995 is true and correct?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition?

6. To what relief?

5. Both parties led their evidence. The original plaintif