IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the burden of proving a will lies with the proponent, who must dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.

JUDGMENT :

V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 30.10.2004, in O.S. No.88 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute title holder of the suit schedule property and to grant consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property by force or from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the property.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.88 of 1996, are as under: The plaint schedule properties along with other properties were acquired by plaintiff’s mother late Nagaratnam under a registered partition deed dated 25.09.1947 and registered settlement deed dated 07.03.1950.

The said Nagaratnam executed a will dated 02.11.1958 bequeathing all her properties in favour of the plaintiff, who was then a minor. The said will was executed by her in a sound and disposing state of mind and it was attested according to law and it was the last testament of Nagaratnam, who died on 05.11.1958. The plaintiff being the sole legatee under the said will has taken possession of all the properties of her mother Nagaratnam represented by her father as a guardian, who is the first defendant herein. The plaintiff sold away some of the properties bequeathed to her. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant and the defendants 1 and 2 partitioned their properties under a registered partition deed dated 06.11.1984, later the defendants 1 and 2 fabricated a registered partition deed dated 25.11.1994 as if item No.1 of the plaint schedule property with an extent of Ac.22.37 cents fell to the share of second defendant and Ac.2.32 cents out of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property fell to the share of first defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement by admitting the execution of will dated 02.11.1958 by his wife Nagaratnam and that it was her last testament executed by her in a sound and disposing state of mind with due attestation according to law and after the death of Nagaratnam, the plaintiff being the sole legatee took possession of all the properties of Nagaratnam and he pleaded that the second defendant misrepresenting to him, got signed on stamped papers by stating that he is rectifying some mistakes in the partition deed dated 06.11.1984. Thus, the contents of document dated 25.11.1994 are not read over and explained to him.

6. The second defendant filed a written statement denying the contents of the plaint and further contended as under:

The second defendant’s mother Nagaratnam never executed any will in any time much less on 02.11.1958 and the alleged will is a rank forgery, concocted and brought into existence. According to the second defendant, Nagaratnam died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 as her legal heirs. After the plaintiff’s marriage, her husband Ganta Ramachandrarao lived in the house of first defendant at Vadalakunta and thereafter he has also shifted his residence along with first defendant, the plaintiff and the second defendant to Jagannadhapuram. The first defendant was managing the properties left by Nagaratnam on behalf of plaintiff and the second defendant also. When some of the properties originally belonged to Nagaratnam was sold, the first defendant being the manager of the family, on behalf of the plaintiff and the second defendant sold the same but not as the agent of the plaintiff. Later the plaintiff’s husband insisted for division of item Nos.1 and 2 of