JUDGMENT:

A.S. No.259 of 2024 is filed by the appellants-defendant Nos.1 and

2 against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2017 passed in O.S. No.205 of 2010 by the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar.

2. I.A. No.1 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners-appellants to condone the delay of 2162 days in filing the above appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants-

defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1-

plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-

appellants were the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The respondent No.1- plaintiff instituted the suit O.S. No.205 of 2010 for declaration and partition against the petitioners-appellants and their uncle N. Srinivas Rao and S. Krishna, one of the attestors of the Will, challenging the Will dated 29.01.2009 of late M. Eshwara Rao. The petitioners were the daughters of the deceased M. Eshwara Rao through his first wife Smt. Sudha Rani. Said Eshwara Rao died on 05.01.2010. The father of the petitioners- appellants during his life time executed a Will bequeathing all his immovable properties in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners were staying in USA since long time. On coming to know about the death of their father in January, 2010, they came to India, attended his funeral, stayed for some time and left to USA. Thereafter, the respondent No.1- plaintiff in the year 2010 filed the suit. The petitioners, after knowing the information regarding filing of the said suit, executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one TVB Rao. The GPA holder TVB Rao was aged 70 years and he engaged one of his relatives, by name, Ramakrishnam as an advocate to defend and contest the case on behalf of defendant No.1 and got engaged another advocate on behalf of defendant No.2. Said TVB Rao was having ailing wife and was having health issues.

4.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that a formal written statement was filed by the counsel on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The respondent No.1-plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A26. The counsel for the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not choose to cross-examine PW.1 or choose to examine the GPA holder of the petitioners as witness and did not mark any documents. The GPA holder was under the improper advice and under the undue influence of the counsels. The petitioners later came to know about it in December, 2023. They were put in dark situation. The trial court by a cryptic order regarding the Will, basing upon a photostat copy of the Will, passed judgment and decree on 21.02.2017. The petitioner No.1, when came to India in December, 2023, was astonished to know about the sorry state of affairs that took place in the proceedings. When she contacted their respective advocates, they gave evasive and unsatisfactory replies.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants further submitted that the GPA holder was hospitalized and he underwent surgery for his leg. The GPA holder’s wife died in the year 2018. The petitioners were prevented from seeking adjudication of their rights in the matter which was beyond their control and it was a bonafide mistake on their part. The final decree proceedings were initiated and the same were pending as on the date. Due to the element of fraud, mis-representation and undue influence, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period. At present, the petitioners changed the GPA holder and also their advocates. The petitioner No.1 had gone to USA on 26.02.2024 after giving necessary instructions to the present counsel to prefer the appeal. As such, the delay occurred. Valuable rights of the petitioners over the properties were involved in the suit and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v.

Mst.Katiji and another1.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff, on