A registered Will, executed in compliance with statutory requirements, holds validity unless proven otherwise; mere suspicions do not negate its authenticity.

JUDGMENT:

The dispute is between the real brothers about the immovable property in an extent of Ac.2.67 cents situate in Sankili Village which was not earned by them out of their own exertions. This property belonged to their natural father Sri Chapa Lakshmana Rao who is no more now.

2. The appellant-Sri Chapa Visweswara Rao initially filed O.S.No.43 of 1992 before learned District Munsif at Rajam as against original respondent-Sri Chapa Ramachandra Rao. The prayer made was for a perpetual injunction. Subsequently, the plaint was got amended wherein an alternative relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession was prayed. On such amendment of the plaint, it was found that the learned District Munsif did not hold jurisdiction and therefore it was transferred to learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam where it was registered as O.S.No.16 of 1999.

3. The plaintiff in the suit asserted title and possession over the property based on a registered Will dated 15.12.1988 said to have been executed by his father. Defendant contested the Will on facts and law and asserted possession over the property based on an unregistered agreement for sale dated 20.04.1983 said to have been executed by his father-Sri Chapa Lakshmana Rao. He claims that in terms of the said agreement for sale possession was obtained by him and he continued to hold the possession.

4. Learned Senior Civil Judge settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction or in the alternative declaration of title and possession?

2. Whether the Regd. Will dated 15.12.1988 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

3. Whether the agreement of sale dated 20.04.1983 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the alternative relief of declaration of his alleged title to and consequential relief of possession of the plaint schedule land?

5. Whether the valuation of the suit and the court fee paid are correct?

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable?

7. To what relief?

5. Plaintiff testified as PW.1 and got examined PWs.2 to 6 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.37. The defendant therein testified as DW.1 and got examined DWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.42. In addition to these documents, Exs.X.1 and X.2 were also marked.

6. Learned trial Judge elaborately considered the evidence on both sides and contentions raised on both sides and the various precedent cited before it about the law concerning Wills. After recording elaborate reasons, the trial Court stated that it disbelieved the Will. Similarly after elaborate consideration the trial Court disbelieved the agreement for sale asserted by the defendant. It answered all the other relevant issues and finally dismissed the suit without costs.

7. Both sides were aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court. The plaintiff in the suit preferred an appeal as per A.S.No.8 of 2001. The defendant in the suit preferred cross-objections since his Ex.B.31-agreement for sale was disbelieved by the trial Court.

8. Learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam considered the rival contentions and the material on record and it recorded the following points for its consideration:

1. Whether Ex.A.1 Will relied by plaintiff is proved to be executed by late Chapa Lakshmana Rao, father of the plaintiff and defendant, as required under law and whether it can be held that Ex.A.1 is true, valid and binding on the parties?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration in respect of the suit properties as prayed for by virtue of Ex.A.1 Will?

3. Whether the agreement to sell Ex.B.31 relied by the defendant is true, valid and whether the defendant is entitled to seek protection under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act?

4. Whether the findings of the learned Senior Civil Judge, warrants any interference?

9. After thorough analysis of the record, the learned appellate Court disbelieved the Will and disbelieved the agreement for sale by judgment dated 28.08.2006. It dismis