The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the validity of a Will, and properties acquired in a wife's name are presumed to benefit her unless proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAOAPPEAL, J.

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed by the Appellant/Defendant challenging the decree and judgment dated 13.04.2017 in O.S.No.15 of 2012 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).

2. Respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2012 for a preliminary decree against the defendant to affect the partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff with good and bad qualities and mesne profits.

3. Referring to the parties as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate confusion and better comprehend the case.

4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

Plaintiff and Defendant are members of a Hindu undivided family, children of late Pitchika Sambasivarao and Kota Veerabhadramma. Both parents died intestate, leaving behind the Plaintiff and Defendant as their legal heirs. The plaintiff's father acquired properties through a registered partition deed dated 24.09.1980 (document No.4416/1980), executed between him and his brothers. Per the partition deed, the B- marked share, namely Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule, was allotted to the plaintiff's father's share. These properties are ancestral, and the plaintiff has a birthright to them. Plaintiff's mother also purchased property through a registered sale deed dated 15.6.1970 (document No.2179/1970), which constitutes Item No.3 in the plaint schedule, with equal rights shared by Plaintiff and Defendant. The plaintiff's father managed these properties as the head of the joint family, and after his death, the Plaintiff and the Defendant acquired equal rights to them. The defendant, however, is creating false documents to avoid partition and deprive the plaintiff of her share. Any document created by the defendant cannot affect the plaintiff's right to her half-share. The plaintiff also learned that the defendant demolished a house on Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property in Rajahmundry and is attempting to alienate the property without partitioning it with the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 15.11.2011 to divide the properties equally. In response, the defendant claimed the existence of a Kararunama (06.11.1998) and an unregistered will (20.07.1989) but failed to provide these documents despite a subsequent request from the plaintiff. As the defendant is acting against the plaintiff's interest, the plaintiff has been compelled to file this suit.

5. The defendant has filed a written statement refuting several claims made by the plaintiff, resisting the suit and contended as follows:

(a) While acknowledging their sibling relationship and their status as children of late Sambasivarao and Kota Veerabhadramma, the defendant admits that Sambasivarao acquired Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties through a partition deed dated 24.09.1980. However, the defendant denies that these properties are ancestral or that the plaintiff has a birthright. The defendant also disputes the claim that the plaintiff's mother purchased Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property in 1970, asserting that it was self- acquired by Sambasivarao. The defendant further asserts that Sambasivarao purchased the property in his wife's name to avoid claims from his siblings and later constructed a two-storied building on it. Following the death of Kota Veerabhadramma, the defendant states she executed an unregistered Will in 1989, bequeathing Item No.3 to Sambasivarao, who then became the sole owner.

(b) Additionally, the defendant claims that Sambasivarao executed a Will on 08.02.2006, bequeathing Item Nos. 1 and 3 to the Defendant and Item No.2 to the Plaintiff. This Will came into effect upon Sambasivarao's death on 20.04.2010. The def