The burden of proof lies on the propounder of a will to dispel suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, and failure to do so results in dismissal of claims for property title.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellants/plaintiffs challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 15.09.2003, in O.S. No.54 of 2000 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the Suit for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the plaint A and B schedule properties and for giving possession of the same to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are entitled for past and future profits of plaint schedule properties.

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.54 of 2000, are as under:

The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the first defendant. The plaintiffs have got two sons and one daughter by name Kanaka Durga. The first plaintiff got divided his family properties with his two sons in the year 1993 and his two sons are living separately and they are married. The plaintiffs' only daughter Kanaka Durga was given in marriage to the first defendant, who is the adoptive son of Sri Edupuganti Venkataratnam and Smt. Seethamma of Nadipalli Kota, West Godavari District. Their marriage was performed at Penikeru on 11.10.1989. The marriage was consummated and Smt. Kanaka Durga joined the society of first defendant at Nadipalli Kota. The plaintiffs gave an extent of Ac.0.26 cents of land in R.S.No.25/1B of Penikeru village at the time of marriage to Kanaka Durga as per the caste custom and conventions and delivered possession of the same to her.

The first defendant and his adoptive parents are not happy with the givings to Kanaka Durga and they started torturing and harassing Smt. Kanaka Durga that she was not given any landed property except Ac.0.26 cents. Having no other go, the first plaintiff yielded to their dictate and purchased the land situated in Nadipalli Kota in the name of his daughter Kanaka Durga in the year 1995 which is the plaint A schedule property. Even thereafter also Smt. Kanaka Durga is not treated well by the first defendant and his adoptive parents. Due to that agony and mental torture, the health of Kanaka Durga was effected and it became bad after May 1998. The plaintiffs got her treated at Tanuku and on the advise of Tanuku doctors, the plaintiffs took her to Kakinada and got her treated at Kakinada. At that time Smt. Kanaka Durga had apprehension of her life and surviving and hence she executed a will in favour of plaintiffs on 26.06.1998 at Penikeru and the said will was notarized at Kakinada on 27.06.1998. Kanaka Durga died on 08.07.1998 at Sudha Hospital at Kakinada, on her demise, as per the will, the plaint A schedule property bequeathed to the plaintiffs and they became the absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties, the first defendant and his adoptive parents also stated the plaintiffs can deal the property as they pleased, but appraised the property is leased out to the second defendant by Kanaka Durga, later the second defendant also represented that he will pay the Maktha for the said property, but the second defendant failed to comply his promise, then the first plaintiff approached the first defendant, then the first defendant stated that the first plaintiff is no way concerned with the land. Then the first plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendants, to which the defendants issued a reply with false allegations. It is also came to the knowledge of the first plaintiff that the first defendant during the life time of his wife Kanaka Durga, manipulated several forged documents and got brought up documents to have wrongful gain apprehending about the health of Kanaka Durga.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further co