A will must be probated to convey title; without probate, a settlement deed executed based on an unproven will is ineffective.

JUDGMENT :

Challenge has been made against the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court allotting 1/10^th share to the plaintiffs 2 to 8 separately and 9 to 12 jointly in the suit properties and decreeing the suit for permanent injunction, in the present appeal by the defendants 6 and 7, who are purchasers of the property from the defendants 2 to 4.

2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are sisters. The second defendant is the wife of Selvaraj, brother of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. The defendants 3 and 4 are daughter and son of the second defendant. The father of the plaintiffs and the first defendant Ramanjulu Naidu purchased the first item of the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 27.12.1945. Thereafter, he and his wife have purchased following agricultural lands :

According to them, the properties have been purchased with self acquired income. The said Ramanjulu Naidu died on 21.03.1980 leaving behind his wife Chandrakandammal, plaintiffs 1 to 8 and the first defendant and their only son Selvaraj as his legal heirs. Chandrakandaammal executed a settlement deed dated 29.06.1989 in favour of her son Selvaraj in respect of the first item of the suit property without any right. Chandrakandaammal is entitled to only 1/11^th share in the first item of the property. She died on 24.10.1994. Selvaraj also died on 11.08.2000. Hence, the suit claiming 1/10^th share.

4. The fifth defendant filed a written statement contending that the settlement deed executed by Chandrakandaammal is not binding on him, it is his contention that he is entitled to 1/10^th share in the first item of the suit property. It is his further contention that the revenue records in respect of first item of the property stands in the name of the defendant Nos.2 to 4.

5. The defendants 6 and 7 took a stand that they purchased 1 acre and 8 cents from the defendants 2 to 4 under a registered sale deed dated 22.01.2007. The sixth defendant had purchased the suit property in survey No.47/1, 0.35 cents and and 29/3A 0.40 cents totally measuring 75 cents from the defendants 2 to 4 on the same day. Hence, they are bonafide purchaser of the suit property for a valuable sale consideration.

6. The 10^th defendant took a stand that Ramanjulu Naidu died on 21.03.1980 leaving behind his widow and the plaintiffs, late Selvaraj and the first defendant as his legal heirs. On the death of Ramanjulu Naidu, male legal heir Selvaraj and widow Chandrakandaammal alone are successors to the estate of Ramanjulu Naidu. The settlement deed executed by Chandrakandaammal is a valid document. It is his further contention that Ramanjulu Naidu had executed a Will dated 21.01.1980 bequeathing the first item of the property in favour of his wife Chandrakandaammal and his son Selvaraj. The first item of the property is owned by this defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any partition.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court :

1. Whether the alleged oral partition in respect of suit property between Ramanujulu and Chandrakandammal is proved by 10^th defendant?

2. Whether Ramanujulu Naidu has executed unregistered Will dated 20.01.1980 in favour of Chandrakandammal pertaining to suit properties is true and valid?

3. Whether settlement deed No.874/1989 dated 29.06.1989 executed in favour of her late son Selvaraj is valid and binding upon the plaintiffs?

4. Whether the Sale Deed execu