IMPORTANT POINT
Plaintiff cannot take advantage of weakness in defendant’s case.

Sri U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.—Aggrieved by the dismissal of plaintiff’s suit in O.S.No.81 of 1992 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla in his judgment dated 29.04.2000, the instant appeal is preferred.

2. The parties in the appeal are referred as they stood before the trial Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

(a) The suit-O.S.No.81 of 1992 was filed by plaintiff for declaration of title and consequential possession of plaint A schedule properties and other reliefs. Her case is that item No.1 of the plaint A schedule property i.e, wet land admeasuring Ac.1-61 cents covered by Sy.No.428/2 of Kondamudi village and item No.2 of the plaint A schedule property i.e, house bearing Door Nos.417 to 420 (corresponding to earlier Door No.362 in Railpet), 5th block of Ponnur Municipality admeasuring Ac.0-17 cents originally belonged to her maternal grandfather i.e, Anumarlapudi Nagabhushana Rao. The plaintiff’s grandfather had only one issue by name Seetharavamma, who is the mother of plaintiff and 1st defendant. The said Nagabhushana Rao executed a will dated 11.08.1919, during his lifetime in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing the plaint A schedule property in favour of his only daughter i.e., plaintiff’s mother towards her pasupu kunkuma and thereafter he died. The plaintiff’s mother came into possession of the plaint schedule property and enjoyed it till her death in 1938 as Stridhana property by which time the plaintiff was 3 years old and D.1 was 1 year old.

(b) The further case of plaintiff is that as per the Hindu Law of Succession prevailing during 1938, the plaintiff alone succeeded to the plaint A schedule property which is the Stridhana property of her mother as her only heir. They were brought up under the care and guardianship of their father Ketharaju Narasimha Rao and their father re-married again and they were all living in Item No.2 of plaint A schedule house and their father was managing that property on behalf of plaintiff by collecting rents and paying taxes and was utilizing the rent amounts, for which plaintiff did not mind.

(c) The plaintiff got married to one Bendapudi Satyanarayana Rao, who was resident of Upputur village and sometime thereafter the plaintiff’s father gave the copy of will dated 11.08.1919. Later, plaintiff shifted from Upputur to Bapatla and D.1 also lived with her. Plaintiff and D.1 used to visit their father who was at Nidubrolu and some time thereafter D.1 started collecting rents etc., on behalf of his father and pay taxes. Plaintiff contends that D.1 had no right or title over plaint A schedule property and he was never in possession of it. D.1 got married and started living separately by doing his own business and he never cared his ailing father.

(d) The plaintiff further submits that on 05.12.1989, her father executed a hand letter on a stamp paper admitting and confirming her rights on plaint schedule property and few days thereafter i.e., on 07.12.1989, he executed a will reiterating the plaintiff’s title and possession to plaint A schedule properties apprehending the earlier letter dated 05.12.1989 may not be sufficient to protect the rights of plaintiff. On coming to know about the execution of the above two documents, D.1 took his father on 08.12.1989 from Nidubrolu to Bapatla on the pretext of his father’s medical checkup and brought back him on 11.12.1989. Later their father died on 14.12.1989 and sometime thereafter, D.1 clandestinely took away all the papers including the will dated 11.08.1919. Plaintiff contended that all of a sudden she received a registered notice dated 08.01.1990 from D.1 with false averments as if the plaint A schedule property belongs to him and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same; the D.2 was managing the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property; their father Narasimha Rao executed an agreement on 10.12.1989 in his favour. The plaintiff issued a reply notice to D.1. The plaintiff further contended that D.