A Will's validity can be proved by one attesting witness's credible testimony despite absence of others, and appellate courts must respect trial findings unless proven erroneous.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 29.07.2013, in A.S.No.121 of 2012, on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 07.08.2012, in O.S.No.205 of 2001, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District.

2. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.205 of 2001, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, with a prayer for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties and for recovery of possession of item Nos.2 and 3 after ejecting the 1st defendant therefrom and also for future profits that are to be determined on a separate application and further seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession and enjoyment of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff and for costs and such other reliefs.

3. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful 2nd defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned VIII Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff approached this Court by way of second appeal.

4. The appellant herein is the plaintiff, the respondent No.1 herein is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.205 of 2001 and the other respondents are the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4. The sole appellant died and his legal representatives are brought on record as appellant Nos.2 to 5.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit O.S.No.205 of 2001.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.205 of 2001, is as follows:

The plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are the sons of one late Immadi Narayana Murthy and Bhavanamma and in their family partition, the suit schedule properties were allotted to their mother Bhavanamma. While so, Bhavanamma has been looked after by the plaintiff till her death an out of love and affection, the said Bhavanamma executed a Will deed dated 10.03.2000 under Ex.A-1, bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff further pleaded that, when the defendant was trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of some of the suit schedule properties, the plaintiff got issued a notice under Ex.A-2 and found that the defendant No.1 executed a sale deed dated 01.10.2001 under Ex.B-1 in favour of the defendant No.2 in respect of Ac.1.05 cents of land out of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, claiming that their mother executed a Will deed dated 07.02.1995 under Ex.B-2 and under the guise of Ex.B-1, the 2nd defendant is trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. As such, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit seeking declaration of his title in respect of item Nos.1 to 3 and for recovery of possession of item Nos.2 and 3 and also for permanent injunction in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property.

7. The 1st defendant was set ex-parte in the trial Court on 22.08.2002 and thereafter, he did not participate in the trial at any stage. The 2nd defen