The court upheld the plaintiff's title under the Hindu Succession Act, affirming that a will lacks validity if it raises suspicions, particularly if its execution occurs under questionable circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

1. The Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 21.10.2024, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar in A.S.No.101 of 2019, by which the judgment and decree, dated 21.06.2019, passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in O.S.No.1438 of 2012 was confirmed.

2. The appellants herein are defendants and respondent herein is plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.1438 of 2012 seeking delivery of house property bearing No.4-2-83/4, admeasuring 123 Sq.yds, situated at Anumagal Nagar, Hayathnagar under Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, L.B.Nagar Circle, R.R.District (hereinafter called ‘suit schedule property’) and for cancellation of will deed bearing doc. No.4 of 2002, dated 05.02.2002. In the plaint it is averred that late Chandramma is owner of suit schedule property and she is the mother of plaintiff’s husband. It is further averred that husband of plaintiff namely Sri A.Nagender inherited the suit schedule property from his mother late Chandramma being the only son; that defendant Nos.1 to 5 are daughters of Chandramma’s sister and defendant No.6 is husband of defendant No.1; that during the lifetime of Chandramma, the defendants were in occupation of the suit schedule property as tenants, as the husband of the plaintiff was working at Vishakhapatnam; that when the plaintiff’s husband requested the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property, they informed him that he has no right over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff’s husband filed suit in O.S.No.1018 of 2003 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar to declare him as legal heir of late Chandramma and the said suit was decreed on 21.12.2009 on merits; that the plaintiff’s husband expired on 27.01.2010 leaving behind the plaintiff as his sole successor.

3.1. It is further averred that the defendants created a will deed in respect of suit schedule property as if the said Chandramma executed the same in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 5 and the original will deed was filed and marked as Ex.B2 in O.S.No.1018 of 2003 which does not contain signature of Chandramma except thumb impression; that Chandramma worked in Social Welfare Department and she is literate and expired on 07.02.2002 and the will deed was executed on 05.02.2002 which is two days prior to her death, which is fabricated and hence, the suit.

3.2. Defendants filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and averred that Chandramma executed registered will deed vide Doc.No.04 of 2002, dated 05.02.2002 bequeathing her properties including the suit schedule property in favour of defendants and the same was marked as Ex.B2 in O.S.No.1018 of 2003 and the respondent/plaintiff has knowledge about execution of registered will deed in the year 2003 itself, hence, the suit is barred by limitation; that defendants preferred appeal against decree dated 21.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.1018 of 2003 in A.S.No.121 of 2010 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and same is reserved for judgment; that defendants have become owners of suit schedule property by virtue of will deed dated 05.02.2002 and their names have been mutated in the records and are paying municipal taxes, water bills, electricity bills and that there is no cause of action and thus, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings