JUDGMENT :

P. SREE SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 02.08.2010 in O.S.No. 26 of 2006 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak.

2. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No. 26 of 2006 for partition and also to declare the sale deeds executed in favour of the appellants/defendants No. 2 & 3 as null and void and to grant Perpetual Injunction. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 3 on behalf of the plaintiff and marked Exs.A1 to A23. D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the defendants and marked Exs.B1 to B21. The trial Court considering the entire evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and declared the sale deeds as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and also granted perpetual injunction against the defendants and the counter claim was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, defendants No. 2 & 3 preferred the present appeal.

3. The appellants/defendants No. 2 & 3 mainly contended that plaintiff was declared as the owner of the suit schedule property basing on the Certified Copy of the Will under Ex.A3, even without producing the original Will. Plaintiff has not proved the loss of original Will and had not followed formalities under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act before submitting the secondary evidence. The trial Court observed that the Certified Copy of the Will was not questioned by other daughters of testator and thus presumed it as valid. The plaintiff has not examined any of the two attesters. One of the attester expired, though the other attester was available, he was not produced by the plaintiff to prove the Will. PW-2 stated that he drafted the Will, but in the Will he was not shown as the Scribe. PW-3 is the son of one of the attester, but he could not identify the signature of his father on the Certified Copy. The trial Court ought to have seen that unless the Court is satisfied that the original Will was lost or damaged should not permit for secondary evidence under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act. The Will was not proved by any acceptable evidence and thus Ex.A3 is not admissible in the evidence. The Counsel for the defendants suggested in the Cross-examination that Balamma revoked her Will. The other daughters of Balamma filed Suit in O.S.No. 9 of 1987. The plaintiff for the first time produced the Certified Copy in O.S.No. 26 of 2006, claiming the title. Though the Exs.B1 and B2 executed in the year 2000, suit was filed in the year 2006 and it is barred by limitation. The names of the appellants were recorded in Pahanies from the year 2000. The appellants filed land revenue receipts, Gazette publication and Ex.B14 to show that they are the owners of the suit schedule land. Though, the appellants stated that defendant No. 1 was colluded with plaintiff, the trial Court erred in observing that defendants have not examined defendant No. 1, who remained ex parte. The Patta Passbook and title deeds issued in favour of the defendants No. 2 & 3 under Ex.B19 and B20 were not considered by the trial Court. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court.

4. The plaintiff namely Kanukula Sathemma filed suit against her father B. Narayana Reddy/defendant No. 1 and the purchasers of the property from her mother i.e, defendants No. 2 & 3. She stated that she is the absolute owner of the property measuring an extent of Acs.6 – 06 gts and she acquired the same through the registered Will deed executed by her mother vide document No. 10 of 1987, dated 23.06.1987 and the same was registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Medak district. The suit schedule property is the exclusive property of her mother and thus defendant No. 1 has no right to deal with the subject properties. The name of her mother was reflected in the Pahanies for more than 30 years and she was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property and she died on 20.06.2000. When plaintiff approached revenue authorities in the f