The court emphasized the necessity of attesting witnesses for will validity and clarified suppression of facts must show intent to deceive to affect the decree's integrity.

JUDGMENT :

K.SUJANA, J.

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2002 passed in O.S.No.479 of 1995 by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present City Civil Court Appeal is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, three sisters of the defendant, filed a suit seeking partition andseparate possession of the suit schedule property, claiming each was entitled to a one-fourth share under a registered will deed dated 28.10.1978 executed by their late father, Sattaiah, who had purchased the property at Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad, in the year 1974 with his self-acquired funds and constructed rooms from his earnings. They alleged that after the death of their father in the year 1979, the defendant, collected all the rents without sharing them and refused to divide the property.

3. On the other hand, the defendant, while not disputing the relationship, contended that he had actually purchased and developed the property with his own funds in the name of his father out of affection. He alleged that the will deed was fabricated when their father was sick and bedridden, and further claimed that the plaintiffs had, for consideration of Rs.30,000/-, executed a registered release deed on 13.02.1980 relinquishing their rights. He asserted exclusive ownership and argued that the suit was barred by limitation and not properly valued.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed three issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A4 are marked. DW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

5. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, vide order dated 06.08.2002, decreed the suit holding that the property was the self-acquired property of the late Sattaiah and that the will deed Ex.A2 was genuine, granting the plaintiffs only life interest in their respective shares, with absolute ownership to pass to their children. Further, the trial Court held that the defendant failed to prove purchase under a benami arrangement but succeeded in proving execution of the release deed Ex.B1. However, the trial Court concluded that even with the release deed, the plaintiffs retained life interest under the will, making the property still partible. The suit was decreed preliminarily for partition into four equal shares, allotting one such share to each plaintiff, subject to refund by them of the Rs.30,000/- consideration with 12% interest from the date of the release deed to realization. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed the present City Civil Court Appeal.

6. Heard Sri K. K. Waghray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Sri Mahesh Raje, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment of the trial court was contrary to law and facts and was therefore liable to be set aside and that the trial Court had given a finding on the proof of the will, Ex.A2, without it being proved as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, as none of the attesting witnesses were examined, and PW1 had even admitted that no attestors had signed the will. Despite this, the trial Court wrongly granted relief to the respondents based on the will. He further submitted that the trial Court misunderstood the description of the property in the will and erroneously considered the case of the respondents in relation to property actually in the possession of the appellants.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the plea of the appellants of sup