Registered wills are presumed valid unless substantial evidence proves otherwise; the burden lies on contesting parties to show defects in execution or suspicious circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

K. SUJANA, J.

1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2002 passed in O.S.No.465 of 1994 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, the present appeal suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of agricultural lands measuring a total extent of Ac.45.18 guntas situated in Panjaguda village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. These lands originally belonged to two brothers, Gumpana Chennaiah and Gumpana Yenkaiah, each holding a half share. After Chennaiah died issueless, his share was succeeded by his widow, Narsamma, who resided with and was maintained by the plaintiffs until her death in the year 1985. The plaintiffs claimed that Narsamma executed a registered Will dated 03.07.1984 bequeathing her entire share to them. They contended that, despite the Will and subsequent mutation of their names in the revenue records, the defendants had refused to partition the land, necessitating the suit for partition and separate possession.

3. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 to 3, who were legal heirs of Yenkaiah and Narsamma, contested the suit, claiming that the plaintiffs had no legal right to the share of Narsamma. They contended that there had been a family arrangement on 02.06.1984 in which Narsamma’s share was equally divided between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3, and that the arrangement had been acted upon. They alleged that the Will produced by the plaintiffs was a forged and fabricated document, and that the plaintiffs had not proved its execution properly. The defendants also asserted that they were in exclusive possession of the lands and had perfected title by adverse possession. Furthermore, they questioned the locus standi of the plaintiffs, the correctness of the Court fee paid, and raised the issue of limitation.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed five issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A18 are marked. DWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B1 to B11 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

5. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, vide order dated 30.09.2002, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the execution and validity of the Will (Ex.A7), as the testatrix, Narsamma, was an illiterate and aged woman, and the evidence did not show that the contents were read over and explained to her in a language she understood. The trial Court found that the Will was suspicious and unreliable. However, the trial Court also found that the family arrangement (Ex.B11) had not been acted upon or proved sufficiently to confer exclusive rights on the defendants. It was further held that, in the absence of a valid Will or enforceable family settlement, the plaintiffs and defendants were entitled to equal shares in the estate of Chennaiah, inherited by Narsamma. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit by granting a preliminary decree, holding that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 were each entitled to a one-fourth share in the share of Chennaiah, and defendant Nos.1 to 3 were also entitled to half share in the portion inherited from Yenkaiah. The trial Court rejected the plea of limitation and adverse possession and directed partition and separate possession as prayed for, with each party bearing their own