M.VENUGOPAL,J.

O.S.A.No.125 of 2008:

1. The Appellants/Plaintiffs have focussed the present Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.04.2005 in C.S.No.980 of 1999 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

O.S.A.No.163 of 2008:

The Appellants/Defendants have preferred the present Appeal in weighing the Order dated 26.04.2005 in T.O.S.No.32 of 2000 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the Common Judgment in C.S.No.980 of 1999 and T.O.S.No.32 of 2000, on 26.04.2005, has, among other things, observed that 'the Ex.P.1-Will dated 03.11.1986 executed by Ramalakshmi Ammal is a true, genuine and valid one and has come to the conclusion that Defendants 5 to 7 have purchased the property when probate was in force for valuable consideration and that they are bona fide purchasers and that revocation of the probate subsequently would not operate as a bar for the title to the property and held that Defendants 5 to 7 cannot be ordered to redeliver the possession of the property to the Appellants/ Plaintiffs.' Also, in regard to the issue "whether notice to the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Board is necessary", the Learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that "as per the Will, the 4th Defendant was made as a legatee of the Will, who is entitled to the suit property and in view of the findings that as per the Will, the 4th Defendant has become the absolute owner of the suit property and not the Mutt" and ultimately found that notice to the H.R. & C.E. Department is an unnecessary one and consequently, dismissed the suit C.S.No.980 of 1999 with costs and ordered for the issuance of Probate in T.O.S.No.32 of 2000 (O.P.No.135 of 1987).

3. The Plaint Facts in C.S.No.980 of 1999 projected by the Appellants/Plaintiffs (Relating to O.S.A.No.125 of 2008)]:

(i) The suit property belonged to K.Ramalakshmi Ammal, wife of K.V.Subba Rao. She inherited the suit property from her husband. She was residing in a portion and let out the remaining portions to six persons viz., P.Arputham, Ravi Ganesh, N.B.Damodaran, Linganathan, Narasimhan (3rd Respondent/3rd Defendant) and Dr.Subba Rao. The aforesaid Ramalakshmi was ill for a long time. She was in possession of number of jewels, silver vessels and brass vessels and she sold one property on 29.08.1986 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,75,000/-. The Respondents 1 and 3/Defendants 1 and 3 were helping her. One K.Jagannatha Rao, an agnate of Ramalakshmi and his daughter (7th Appellant/7th Plaintiff) were also helping her. However, she was completely guided by the Respondents 1 to 3/Defendants 1 to 3.

(ii) Ramalakshmi expired on 26.12.1986, at the age of 83. On the date of death, K.Jagannatha Rao, being an agnate, performed the funeral rites. He was not having details about her properties. He only knew that she had jewels, silver vessels and brass vessels and bank balances besides the suit property. The Respondents 1 to 3/ Defendants 1 to 3 alone were possessed of details.

(iii) In October 1987, the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant issued a Cheque No.098436 dated 03.10.1987 for Rs.9,000/-drawn on State Bank of India to K.Jagannatha Rao stating that the deceased Ramalakshmi directed him to give the said sum to him. He became suspicious and enquired about her properties. He learnt that Respondents 1 to 3/Defendants 1 to 3 claimed to be Executors of an alleged Will dated 03.11.1986 of Ramalakshmi filed O.P.No.135 of 1987 before this Court and obtained Probate as per order dated 02.07.1987. The Respondents 1 to 3/Defendants 1 to 3 very well know that the said K.Jagannatha Rao alone is the next kin of the deceased. However, no notice was given to him.

(iv) The said Jagannatha Rao projected an Application No.3926 of 1988 in O.P.No.135 of 1987 for revoking the grant of Probate dated 02.07.1987. Before filing of the said Application, notices were exchanged between the parties. In Application No.3926 of 1988, the Defendants were the Respondents. Respondents 1 to 3/