The validity of a Will requires that it be executed with sound mind and free of suspicious circumstances, established by evidence, which was upheld despite challenges.

JUDGMENT :

NINALA JAYASURYA, J.

The unsuccessful defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 in O.S.No.44 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.12.2024, passed by the 12^th Additional District Judge, Pithapuram in A.S.No.87 of 2014, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, filed the present Second Appeal.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3) The plaintiff one Smt.Kurakula Yesuratnam, filed the above said suit seeking the relief of declaration and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property of an extent of Ac.0-75 cents in Sy.No.294/1 and an extent of Ac.0-94 cents in Sy.No.293/2 i.e., wet land an extent of Ac.1-69 cents in all, situated in Viravada village of Pithapuram Mandal. In the plaint, it is inter alia pleaded that one Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao has three sons and three daughters. He gave the 1^st defendant in adoption to his brother Lovaraju and he was brought up by the said Lovaraju. The marriage of the 1^st defendant was performed by Mr.Lovaraju and since the date of adoption of the 1^st defendant he has nothing to do with the properties of his natural family, that as on the date of adoption Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao has no ancestral property and subsequently the said Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao acquired immovable properties with the assistance of his other two sons. Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao, after the death of his wife about 12 years ago, used to reside in the house of the plaintiff as she is no other than his granddaughter and wife of the 2^nd defendant. It is further stated that the said Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao was in the care and custody of the plaintiff and she did all services till he died on 21.02.1997, that during his lifetime the said Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao executed his last Will on 18.02.1997 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. After the death of the said Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao, the 1^st defendant obstructed the husband of the plaintiff to cultivate the suit schedule property and after issuing a legal notice, the plaintiff filed the suit initially for recovery of possession and thereafter sought relief of declaration of title by amending the prayer. By way of rejoinder the plaintiff also pleaded that the Wills executed by the said Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao prior to the last Will dated 18.02.1997 have no sanctity and the defendants have no right to challenge the alienations or bequeaths made by the said Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao in his Will dated 18.02.1997.

4) The 1^st defendant initially filed written statement and an additional written statement after the amendment of the prayer in the suit. While denying the plaint averments, it was inter alia pleaded that settling the suit scheduled properties the said Mr.Karukula Venkata Rao executed a Registered Will dated 20.02.1995 in favour of the 1^st defendant and further that the suit is filed with the help of a forged and fabricated Will. It was also pleaded that there is no possibility to execute the alleged Will dated 18.02.1997 in favour of the plaintiff as the said Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao was bedridden since 5 to 6 days prior to his death.

5) Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 filed separate written statement denying the plaint averments and that a Registered Will dated 20.02.1995 was executed in their favour and prior to the execution of the Will in favour of the 1^st defendant, the Will