The burden of proof lies on the party alleging fraud in the execution of a will, and the plaintiffs successfully proved the validity of the will dated 17.03.1994.

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/defendants 1 to 3 challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 16.04.2008, in O.S. No.06 of 2000 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 4 to 8 in the said Suit.

2. The plaintiffs filed a Suit to pass a preliminary decree in their favour for partition of items 1 to 3 in plaint A schedule properties into 2 equal halves and to allot one such share in item No.1 to the 3rd plaintiff, one such share in item No.2 to the 2nd plaintiff and one such share in item No.3 to the 1st plaintiff as per the bequests made by their father Bangaru Viswanadham under a registered will dated 17.03.1994, for partition of plaint B schedule properties into 2 equal halves and to allot one such share to them jointly, to order rendition of accounts in respect of the income derived from plaint A and B schedule properties from 11.09.1999 till the date of delivery of their shares, to ascertain future profits on a separate application and for costs.

First defendant died on 11.07.2005 leaving behind him the second defendant who is his wife, the third defendant, who is his son and the defendants 6 to 8 who are his daughters.

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.6 of 2000, are as under:

The plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sisters, the first defendant is their brother and all of them are the children of late Bangaru Viswanadham and his wife Ratna Manikyam. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant and the third defendant is their son. The said Viswanadham and the first defendant were living as members of joint family which possessed plaint A and B schedule properties as joint family members. During his life time the said Bangaru Viswanadham executed a registered will dated 17.03.1994 bequeathing his undivided half share in item 1 of plaint A schedule building to the third plaintiff, his undivided half share in item No.2 of plaint A schedule to the second plaintiff and his undivided half share in item 3 of the plaint A schedule to the first plaintiff after reserving life interest for his wife Ratnam Manikyam. The said will was executed by him in a sound and disposing state of mind and it was his last will and testament. Prior to the execution of the said will he has executed another registered will dated 06.08.1984 making various bequests to his daughters and others. By virtue of the execution of the will dated 17.03.1994 the said Viswanadham has revoked his earlier will dated 06.08.1984. The said Viswanadham died on 30.07.1994 and after his death his wife Ratna Manikyam lived for a period of 5 years and died on 10.09.1999. During the life time of Viswanadham, his only son i.e., first defendant herein did not properly look after him and therefore in the will dated 17.03.1994 it was clearly written by Viswanadham that he had no intention to give any property to his son or daughter-in-law or to his grandson i.e., third defendant. Just 15 days prior to his death the said Viswanadham came to see his wife, who was then staying in the house of the first plaintiff at Rajahmundry and stayed there for 15 days and thereafter suddenly died on 30.07.1994 at Rajahmundry in the house of the first plaintiff, later on his wife was also not looked after by the first defendant even though she lived for 5 years after the death of her husband and as such she was staying along with the first plaintiff and died at her house at Rajahmundry. Item No.2 of plaint A schedule property was let out to the fourth defendant who is running a convent school in that building and she has been paying a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- and item No.3 of plaint A schedule building was let out by the first defendant to the fift