The main legal point established in the judgment is that the genuineness of a claimed unregistered Will is crucial in determining the entitlement to property shares, and lack of evidence to prove the genuineness can support the opposing party's claim.

JUDGMENT

V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J. - Aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment, dated 10.01.2003, passed in O.S.No.43 of 1997, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'), this instant appeal is preferred by defendant Nos.1, 6 to 8 against the plaintiff and other defendants challenging the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.

2. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.43 of 1997 filed the suit against the defendants for claiming the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property into four (4) equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and for profits.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.43 of 1997, are as follows:-

The plaintiff is the wife of one Sundara Rami Reddy, who is the brother of 1st defendant; 2nd defendant is the mother of the plaintiff's husband and D1 and 3rd defendant is the son of 1st defendant and 4th defendant is the purchaser of the property from the plaintiff. The plaint schedule property originally belongs to Venkata Subba Reddy who died intestate, long ago and he left behind the plaintiff, his wife 2nd defendant, 1st defendant and plaintiff's husband who are his sons. During the life time of Venkata Subba Reddy, he managed and enjoyed the family properties as a manager; after his death, his sons enjoyed the schedule properties of Sundara Rami Reddy. The said Sundara Rami Reddy died leaving behind his wife i.e., the plaintiff herein and the 1st defendant assumed the management of joint family properties. She demanded the defendants 1 and 2 for partition of the properties and put her in separate possession of her share. The Will referred to in the reply notice of D1 and D2 is not a genuine one and she succeeded to the share of Ganga Rami Reddy as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

5. The plaintiff further pleaded that she sold item Nos.20 to 22 of the schedule property to the 4th defendant. D1 and D2 filed O.S.No.92 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ongole, against her and the 4th defendant and one Vijaya Lakshmi, foster daughter of the plaintiff and an interim injunction was also passed against them and the suit is still pending for disposal. The 2nd defendant, who is mother of 1st defendant and plaintiff's husband are entitled to a share in the properties of plaintiff's husband. Thus, the plaintiff and second defendant are entitled to half share with full and absolute rights. As the defendants are not cooperating, she filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into four (4) equal shares and for allotment of one such share to her.

6. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 died during the pendency of the suit and the 4th defendant remained ex parte.

7. The 1st defendant filed written statement which was adopted by the D2 and D3. They admitted the relationship between the parties, but denied the material allegations in the plaint and pleaded that the joint family properties of Venkata Subba Reddy were partitioned by his two sons at about 30 years ago during the life time of Venkata Subba Reddy. The 1st defendant and his brother Subdrarami Reddy took half share each and on 30.05.1974, the first defendant and his brother Sundararami Reddy purchased item Nos.20 to 22 jointly in the name of their father. D1 also got service connection in his name for running electric motor for the use of the said item Nos.20 to 22 of the schedule property. The defendants further pleaded that Sundara Rami Reddy got kidney trouble in the year 1989 and his health was deteriorated and he executed an unregistered Will in the morning hours on 22.04.1990 in a sound and disposing state of mind, wherein he bequeathed the residential house bearing No.2-15 in Madanur village, to his wife. The plaintiff herein with, absolute rights created life estate in her favour for an extent of Ac.3.70 cents of land with vested reminder to one Baddela Vijay