O.S.No.269/20141P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
:: IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::
ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT:- Smt.G.Deena
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu
Tuesday, this the 26th day of March, 2024
ORIGINAL SUIT No.269/2014
Between :
1.K.Sujatha
2.R.Suguna...Plaintiffs
And
1.N.Boja Raju 2.N.Rama Krishna 3.N.Subramanyam 4.N.Sakuntala 5.N.Chandra Sekhar
6.N.Sharada...Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Varada Raju, advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri
N.R.K.Mohan, advocate for defendants No.1 and 3 to 6 and defendant No.2 set exparte and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession of
Plaintiff’s 1/5th share in the suit schedule property and for costs.
2.The plaint averments in brief are as follows:
The plaintiffs submit that they are daughters of late N.Gopal and
N.Rukmanamma, defendants are sons, all are brothers and sisters. Their father died on 31.5.2007 and their mother died on 28.3.2014 leaving behind them to succeed their estate. During life time their father N.Gopal, in good state of mind and on his own accord has executed a Reg.Will bearing
No.203/2004 dt.6.12.2004 which was entered in Book No.3 and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ananthapuram in the name of his wife
O.S.No.269/20142P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
N.Rukmanamma bequeathing all his rights in the schedule property. During his life time N.Gopal has laid plots in the land in Sy.No.145/1B of
Kakkalapalli village in Rudrampeta Gram Panchayat and he has sold major plots to 3rd parties and retained the schedule mentioned plots for his own.
After death of their father, their mother has acquired rights over the said property and she has taken possession and enjoyment of the said plots and continued to live in her house bearing D.No.6-4-499, Maruthi Nagar,
Anantapuram and she was doing lots of devotional works and contributed lots of funds to the various temples. During her life time in good state of mind and on her own accord she had executed reg.Will bearing No.344/2012 which was entered in Book No.3 and registered in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Ananthapuram in the name of her three sons and two daughters to succeeds her estate. As per the said will the plaintiffs are entitled to claim equal share in the schedule property, after her death the said Will came into operation. Their mother during her life time has purchased a house bearing door No.6-4-499 in plot No.36, situated in Maruthi Nagar,
Anantapuram and she breath her last breath in her house. After death of their parents, the plaintiff and defendants are inherited and succeed to the suit properties as legal heirs and they have jointly acquired and possessed suit properties among themselves. There is no partition of the suit properties and the plaintiffs are entitled 1/5th share each and the defendants are also entitled to 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. While so the defendants are truing to dispose of the suit properties after death of their mother to the 3rd parties, having came to know the same the plaintiffs have approached the defendants about their illegal acts and on 11.4.2014 demanded for partition and separate possession of suit properties as per wish and Will of their mother, but the defendants refused for the same.
Hence they got issued legal notice dt.11.4.2014 not to alienate the suit
O.S.No.269/20143P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
properties till the settlement of the dispute, notices served on the defendants, the defendants got issued reply notice dt.19.4.2014 denying their share, and alleged that their mother executed a Reg.Will dt.30.12.2013 in their favour only. The suit properties are self acquired properties of their father and mother. The defendants are not alone having exclusive right, or interest over the properties and they are not having any right to alienate the properties. Their mother during her life time was maintaining S.B.
Account bearing No.021710011101684 and was having a cash balance of
Rs.50,000/- at the time of her death and she was also holding a bank safety locket in the same bank having 50 thulas of gold and the plaintiffs are also entitled to have an equal share in the said properties also.
3. The plaintiffs further submitted that their mother during her life time, has given some properties to the defendants and put them into possession and enjoyment of the property ever since from the date of of registered documents. Their mother also executed a reg. Gift deed bearing
No.997/2009 dt.21.2.2009 and gifted the landed property in Sy.No.145/1B measuring Ac.6.29 cents pyki Ac.0.05 cents in Plot No.27 situated in
Kakkalapalli village, to the 1st defendant. So also their mother has executed a reg.Gift deed bearing No.995/2009 dt.21.2.2009 and No.3263/2013 gifted the landed property in Sy.No. 145/1B measuring Ac.6.29 cents pyki
Ac.0.05 cents in Plot No.26 and 22 situated in Kakkalapalli village, to the 2nd defendant. Likewise their mother has executed a reg.Gift deed bearing
No.996/2009 dt.21.2.2009 No.3263/2013 gifted the landed property in
Sy.No. 145/1B measuring Ac.6.29 cents pyki Ac.0.05 cents in Plot No.28 situated in Kakkalapalli village, to the 3rd defendant. Hence the suit.
4. The 3rd defendant filed written statement admitting their relationship and execution of will by their father in favour of their mother and denied
O.S.No.269/20144P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
the execution of will by their mother. The 1st and defendants 4 to 6 adopted the written statement filed by the 3rd defendant. He submitted that the alleged will executed by their mother is a got up will with the help of attestors who are close to plaintiffs. Their mother has not executed any
WILL dated 29.12.2012 bearing Doc.No.344/2012, the defendants are not aware of the said will, the same is brought into existence by the plaintiffs with a malafide intention. She had no intention to give the property to her daughters, in fact she has executed a Reg.Will dt.30.12.2013 vide Doc.
No.48/13 in favour of defendants. The said will is executed by her in a sound state of mind and the same is last will executed by her with free will and volition. On her demise the will has come into force and the defendants have succeeded to the said property, as per the recitals of the said will. The plaintiffs are neither in possession of the property nor they are entitled to any right in the property, the properties are in the possession and enjoyment of defendants as per the recitals of the will. The plaintiffs are well aware of the said will and in spite of that they have filed this unjust suit only to harass the defendants, the 1st defendant is a blind person, and the 3rd defendant is ailing. The mother of the plaintiffs had great love and affection towards her sons and so she has bequeathed the property to them.
The recitals of the will are acted upon and the plaintiffs became entitled to all the properties as per the will. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any share much less 1/5th share over the plaint schedule properties. There is no cause of action for the present suit and court fee paid by the plaintiffs is not correct and prayed the court to dismiss the suit.
5. The plaintiffs filed rejoinder, denying the contentions of defendants, and submitting that in fact the plaintiffs are also in joint possession and enjoyment along with the defendants even after death of their mother.
O.S.No.269/20145P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
They have not seen the alleged will dt.30.12.2013. The Reg.will dt.29-12- 2013 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs, the testator executed the will in a sound state of mind and she has reserved all her rights to revoke the will as and when she wishes during her life time. The testator has further specifically declared her intention to share all her properties by her sons and daughters equally, the will executed by their mother is secret and confidential document which came into operation after her death. The alleged will bearing No.48/2013 dated 30.12.2013 alleged to have been executed by their mother is not at all a will and the same was pressed into service and got into existence by force and the same was obtained under undue influence and coercion and by playing fraud and the testator was given with sleeping pills at the time of execution of the will, the testator was used to sign her signature, but the signature of the testator was not made and only the thumb impressions are obtained on the document. The attestors also henchmen of the defendants and they are close friends. The required procedure to register the will was not followed and the same will not satisfy the legal requirements of the Will under section 2(h) of the Indian
Succession Act and must be executed and proved with the provisions of sections 63 and 68 of the Evidence Act. The formalities are required by statute for making declaration regarding her contention, when those formalities are not complied with the document cannot be constitute the will. Their mother has reserved her rights in the will No.344/2012 to revoke the will as and when she wishes to do so. If really th will No.48/2013 was executed in sound and disposal state of mind, the testator has to cancel the will No.344/2012 and has to make a declaration of the will No.48/2013.
In the absence of the fundamental requirements in the will No.48/2013 cannot be considered as valid will and same was obtained under undue influence and coercion and by playing fraud on the testator and she was
O.S.No.269/20146P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
given with sleeping pills at the time of execution of the will. The alleged will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the same was forged obtained by playing fraud on the testator and she has no intention to execute a will in favour of her three sons only. The defendants in order to deprive the rights of plaintiffs got prepared the document in connivance of the Registration Department, knowing fully well aware of the existence of the will No.344/2012 dated 29.12.2012. the recitals of the will clearly establishes the intention of defendant in drafting their intention to knock away the properties ignoring the equal shares of plaintiffs. The testator was never lived simply and she had handful of cash with her and 50 thulas of gold in her bank locker in Andhra Bank, Ramnagar branch, Ananthapuramu, she has donated Rs.5,80,000/- to the Sri Shiridi Sai Baba Temple to make and bring the Sai Baba Statue in the recently constructed Sai Baba Temple situated in Maruthi Nagar, Ananthapur and she also donated another sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- on the occasion unveiling of the Stature of Sri Shiridi Sai Baba on 15.5.2013 to celebrate the function in great manner, she has lots of money with her and lived generously, all the recitals of the will No.48/2013 are got up for the purpose of the defendants to suit their intention and prayed the court to reject the claim of the defendants.
6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.
(1) Whether the two wills dt.29.12.2013 vide doc.No. 344/12
or the other will dt.30.12.2013 vide document No.48/13 is true
valid and enforceable will?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled 1/5th share in the
plaint schedule properties or not?
(3) To what relief?
O.S.No.269/20147P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
7.During course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.15 and on behalf of defendants
D.Ws.1 and 2 examined and got marked Ex.B.1.
8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.
I S S U E S NO.1 and 2 :
9. As per the record, plaintiffs are the daughters and defendants are sons of late N.Gopal and N.Rukmanamma, their father N.Gopal died on 31.5.2007 and their mother N.Rukmanamma died subsequently on 28-3- 2014 leaving behind them as their legal heirs to succeed their estate.
10. There is no dispute as to the fact that plaint schedule property and other properties referred in the record/documents are the absolute properties of N.Gopal/father of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3, during his life time, in good state of mind and on his own accord he executed Ex.A.3
Regd. Will dt.6.12.2004 bequeathing the land Ac.9-98 cents in Sy.No.145 in favour of his wife N.Rukmanamma cancelling his previous will dt.21.1.2004, since then Rukminamma had been in the possession and enjoyment of said property. He specifically mentioned during his life time through gifts or some other ways he has given movable or immovable properties to his children and hence he is not bequeathing any properties to his children through this will and bequeathed the balance land out of Ac.9-98 cents in
Sy.No.145 in favourof his wife. Hence after demise of Gopal, his wife
N.Rukmanamma has become absolute owner of the property of Ex.A.3 will deed.
11. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of items No.1 to 4 plaint schedule properties of Rukmanamma.
O.S.No.269/20148P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
Item No.1: Plot No.20 situated in the land Kakkalapalli village in
Rudrampet GramPanchayat withuin the SRD and RD of Ananthapuramu in
Sy.No.145/1B pyki AC.9-98 cents pyki Ac.0-005 cents or 242 square yards, Market value Rs.12,10,00-00
Bounded by East: Plot No.29, West:Road,South:Plot No.2 and North:
Plot No.19.
Item No.2: Plot No.21 situated in the land Kakkalapalli village in
Rudrampet GramPanchayat withuin the SRD and RD of Ananthapuramu in
Sy.No.145/1B pyki AC.9-98 cents pyki Ac.0-005 cents or 242 square yards,
Market value Rs.12,10,00-00
Bounded by East: Plot No.28, West:Road,South:Plot No.22 and North:
Plot No.20.
Item No.3: House property situated in Maruthi nagar, bearing Door
No.6-4-499 Market value Rs.30,91,719-00
Item No.4: Gold of 50 thulas at Rs.26,000/- per tula amounting to
Rs.13,00,000/-
12. The contention of plaintiffs/daughters is, during his life time their father Gopal has laid plots in the Sy.No.145/1B of Kakkalapalli village, in
Rudrampeta Pachayat, he sold away major number of plots to third parties and retained some plots for his own. After death of their father Gopal, as per his will Ex.A.3 their mother N.Rukmanamma acquired all rights over said retained plots/land out of Ac.9-98 cents in Sy.No.145 and she has taken possession and enjoyment of the said property.
13. The recitals of Ex.A.3 shows that the testator Gopal has already given movable and immovable properties to his children, hence he is not allotting
O.S.No.269/20149P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
any properties in Ex.A.3 to his children and bequeathed the balance land out of Ac.9.98 cents in Sy.No.145 in favour of his wife. item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties are the balance land out of the land devolved upon the Rukminamma in Sy.No.145. There is no dispute as to the fact that item No.3 house property at D.No.6-4-499 is stands in the name of deceased Rukmanamma and it is her absolute property.
14. The main contention of plaintiff is, during her life time their mother
Rukmanamma executed Ex.A.4/Ex.A.15 Regd. Will dt.29-12-2012 bequeathing her properties equally upon her children i.e. the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3, though it is last will defendants 1 to 3 are not coming forward for partition, hence they issued Ex.A.5 legal notice dt.11.4.2014 to the defendants, to that they issued reply notice Ex.A.7 dt.19.4.2014. The recitals of Ex.A.7 reply notice shows that defendants denying execution of
Ex.A.3 reg.Will dt.6.12.2004 by Rukmanamma and alleged that plaintiffs only brought into existence the said will with a malafide intention, in fact
Rukmanamma has no intention to execute the Ex.A.3 will. They further pleaded, indeed Rukmanamma executed Ex.B.1 Reg.Will dt.30.12.2013 in favour of defendants 1 to 3, after death of Rukmanamma, as per the said will, after the said will came into force defendants 1 to 3 became absolute owner of the items 1 to 3 of plaint schedule properties. Even in their written statement defendants 1 to 3 pleaded during her life time their mother executed Ex.B.1 reg.Will in their favour bequeathing all her properties in their favour equally and alleged that Ex.A.4 will is a got up document and brought into existence by the plaintiffs with malafide intention.
15.One of the contention of defendant is certificate of registration is prima facie evidence that requirement of the acts accompanied with, the burden is on the person to prove any act or omission which would invalidate the
O.S.No.269/201410P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
registration. On this aspect they relied on decision reported in AIR 1962
Andhra Pradesh 29 (V 49 C 10) in between Voleti Venkata Rama Rao
Vs. Kasa-pragada Bhaskara Rao and others wherein their lordship
held that:
The fact that a document has endorsed on it a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence that the requirements of the Act have been complied with, and after such endorsement, the burden of proving any act or omission which would in-validate the registration rests on the person who challenges the registration. While it is, no doubt, true that mere registration is not in itself proof of the due execution of a document, the certificate endorsed by the registration officer on the document is admissible to prove that the executant was of sound mind.
16.On the same aspect but with different contention that mere registration of the will does not itself infer that it is duly executed by the testator, plaintiffs relied on a decision reported in AIR 1962 SC 567 (V 49
C 86) (From Assam) in between Rani Purnima Devi And Another vs
Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev and another wherein their lordship
held that:
If a will has been registered, that is a circumstance which may, having regard to the circumstances, prove its genuineness. But the mere fact that a will is registered will not by itseld be sufficient to dispel all suspicion regarding it where suspicion exists, without submitting the evidence of registration to a close examination.
17.Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:
If a document is required by law to be attested it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its execution if there be an attesting witness and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration
O.S.No.269/201411P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
Act, 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.
18.As per the said findings and provision of law, whether there is admission of opposite parties or not, to use the Will in evidence the due execution of it has to be proved by the propounder of the Will.
Regarding Ex A.4/A.15 will deed:
19.As per the recitals of Ex.A.4 will dt.29.12.2012 it is executed by
Neelaiahgari Rukmanamma Wife of late Neelaiahgari Gopal, aged about 75 years bequeathing her house property at D.No.6-4-499/ Item No.3 of plaint schedule and 50 thulas of gold jewelry/ Item No.4 of plaint schedule kept in the Bank Locker in account No.021710011101684, Andhra Bank, Rama
Nagar Branch, Anantapuram equally to her children i.e. the plaintiffs 1 and 2, defendants 1 to 3. One T.Sreenivasa Babu S/o P.Venkateswarlu and one
S.Md.Aquib S/o Mynuddin are the attestors and one B.Venu Gopal is scribe of Ex.A.4 will.
20. To prove due execution of Ex.A.4 will, plaintiff produced the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, documents Ex.A.1 to A.15. Ex.A.4/A.15 is the present disputed will dt.29.12.2012, P.W.1 is the 1st plaintiff, P.W.2 is the attestor and P.W.3 is the document writer of Ex.A.4 reg.will
21. In their written statement defendants 1 to 3 categorically denied
Ex.A.4 as the will executed by their mother and alleged it is got up document with the help of attestors who are close to the plaintiffs.
22. P.W.2 attestor in his examination in chief deposed the testator
Rukmanamma in good state of mind executed Ex.A.4 will dt.29.12.2012 under document No.344/12bequeathing and declaring that house property at D.No.6-4-499 and also 50 thulas of gold jewelry kept in Andhra Bank
O.S.No.269/201412P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
Locker Ramanagar Branch, Ananthapuram have to be equally distributed and shared among her sons and daughters who are defendants and plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the present case. The said will was registered at Sub Registrar
Office, Ananthapuramu at 3-00 PM. he was very much present during the course of transaction and stood as one of the witness for the Will, one
S.Md.Aquib son of late Myduddin is another attestor for the will. And the Will was prepared and drafted by B.Venu Gopal, document writer of
Ananthapuramu, the testator of the will was physically present before the
Sub Registrar of Anantapuram and he (P.W.2) was present till completion of the registration of the will.
23. P.W.3 document writer of Ex.A.4 Will deposed the testator
Rukmanamma wife of late Neelaiah gari Gopal aged about 77 years, in good state of mind has executed Ex.A.4 Reg.Will on 29.12.2012 bequeathing and declaring that the house bearing Door No.6-4-499/item
No.3 and also gold of 50 thulas/item No.4 kept in Andhra Bank Ram Nagar
Branch, Ananthapuramu shall equally distributed among the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 who are her children. He further mentioned that the said will is prepared and drafted by him on the instructions of late
N.Rukmanamma and explained to her in Telugu and she admitted the contents of the will, then they have presented the will before the Sub
Registrar of Anantapuram for registration. The will is registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Anantapuram at 3-00 PM and the testator was physically present before Sub Registrar of Anantapuram and he (P.W.3) was present till completion of the registration of the Will. One P.Sreenivasa Babu and
S.MD.Aquib have witnessed the transaction and attested the Will as attestors.
O.S.No.269/201413P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
24. In his cross examination P.w.3 deposed, P.W.2 Srinivasa Babu came to him on that day around 11-00 A.M, he only brought testator
Rukmanamma to him. Rukmanamma produced the particulars of properties to him, he has mentioned the same in Ex.A.15 will. Rukmanamma is a signatory, she can read document, he mentioned the details of the property as narrated by her. Later the contents were read over to her by Srinivasa
Babu. In his examination in chief P.W.3 deposed he was present when the document presented before the Sub Registrar for registration, he was present till completion of registration process. But contradicting that in his cross examination he deposed he was not present at the time of registration, he did not go to Registrar Office, he know about the transaction till drafting of the document, he do not know what was happened subsequently. He further explained after drafting of the document, witnesses and others signed on the document in his presence, but he was not present at the time of registration. In the cross examination of P.W.3 suggestions of defendant is on dictation of Srinivasa Babu only Ex.A.4/A.15 was prepared, testator has not given any instructions to P.W.3 for preparation of the will.
25.As already stated above, section 68 of Indian Evidence Act provides that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness atleast has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. The positive evidence of one of the attesting witness is made necessary, to make sure with/to prove due execution of the will by testator with free will.
26.As per section 63 of Indian Succession Act every testator shall execute his will according to the following Rules;
(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.
O.S.No.269/201414P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will.
(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.
27. Herein this case, P.W.2 is attestor. In his evidence regarding drafting of will and subsequent proceedings, he has not specifically deposed that regarding drafting of will on the instructions of testator, he witnessing, acknowledging the contents, the testator Rukmanamma signing in the document Ex.A.15 will deed and P.W.2 deposed in one sentence that
Rukmanamma in good state of mind executed the will Ex.A.5 bequeathing schedule properties equally among her children, will is registered in the Sub
Registrar Office at 3-00 PM. There is no specific statement even in his examination-in-chief by P.W.2 that Ex.A.5 will was prepared on the instructions of Rukmanamma, contents were read over to Rukmanamma, she accepted them as true and correct, later she signed in Ex.A.15 Will, after that the document was presented before Sub Registrar, attestor witnessed the testator signing before Sub Registrar, and they identified her before Sub
Registrar. It is mentioned in the evidence affidavit of P.W.2, he was very much present during course of transaction and stood as one of the witness to the will, one S.MD.Aquib is another witness to the will, the Will is
O.S.No.269/201415P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
prepared and drafted by P.W.3 Venugopal Document writer, the testator of the will physically present before the Sub Registrar, and he was present till completion of the registration of the will.
28. A careful perusal of both, examination in chief and cross examination of P.W.2, nowhere he specifically deposed that on the instructions of testator
Rukmanama only Ex.A.15 was prepared, later contents were read over to her, either by the Document Writer or by anyone else, then she accepted them as true and correct and later the testator signing in Ex.A.15 will, vis- a-versa the attestors signing witnessed by the testator and the attestors identifying the testator before the Registering Authority and they witnessing the testator before Sub Registrar, signing at the time of registration.
29. In his examination in chief P.W.3 mentioned that the contents of
Ex.A.15 were read over and explained in Telugu to the Testator in Telugu, she admitted the contents of the will. He did not state who did that, but in the cross examination he deposed the contents of the will read over to her by Srinivasa Babu. But, the said statements is not stated by P.W.2 that he only read over contents of the will to testator and explained them in Telugu, then she accepted them as true and correct. Though the examination-in- chief of P.W.3/document writer reveals that he was present through out proceedings, and he was present when the document was presented before
Sub Registrar for registration and he was also present till completion of registration of the will, contradicting that,in his cross examination he deposed he was not present at the time of registration, he did not go to the
Sub Registrar Office, he know till drafting of the document, he do not know what was happened subsequently. He further explained that witnesses and others signed on the document in his presence. He also did not specifically mentioned whether he witnessed signing of testator on Ex.A.4. It is
O.S.No.269/201416P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
specifically deposed by P.W.3 that he was not present at Sub Registrar
Office, when the will is presented and he do not know about subsequent proceedings.
30. As per the evidence of P.W.1 at the time of execution of the Ex.A.4 will, she along with her sister/2nd plaintiff were present, they only taken their mother to the Sub Registrar Office, on that day their mother was not feeling well. P.W.1 specifically deposed the description of the property bequeathed to each of the legatee has been described by her on the instructions of testator. She further deposed her mother instructed particulars of property without referring any document. But P.W.3 Document
Writer deposed testator Rukmanamma produced him the particulars of the property, he has mentioned same in Ex.A.15, he has mentioned details of property in Ex.A.15 as narrated by Rukmanamma. P.W.2 one of the attestor deposed at the time of execution of Ex.A.15, Rukmanamma possessed all the relevant sale deeds of the property referred in Ex.A.15, she was able to give particulars of the properties possessed by her while preparing Ex.A.15.
31.In view of above discussion, it can conclude that the attestor evidence does not reveals preparation of the will on the instructions of the testator, later testator acknowledging the recitals of the will as true and correct, later signing the document, visa versa the attestation of attestors.
Regarding Ex.B.1 Regd.Will:
32.As per contention of defendants, during her life time their mother
Rukmanamma executed Ex.B.1 Reg.Will dt.30.12.2013 in sound and disposing state of mind with free will and volition, bequeathing schedule properties 1 to 3 equally among her sons/defendants 1 to 3.
O.S.No.269/201417P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
33. To prove the due execution of the will, defendants produced the evidence of D.W.1 and 2, Ex.B1 will deed. As per the recitals of Ex.B.1 will dt.30.12.2013, Will deed is executed by N.Rukmanamma, wife of N.Gopal, aged about 80 years, in sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing schedule mentioned properties I.ehouse at D.No.6-4-499 LP No.287/84 in
Sy.No.140/1 Ward No.6, Mangalavari colony Ananthapuram municipal limits and plots 20 and 21 under LP No.88/95 in Sy.No.145/1B RD and SRD of
Ananthapuram, Kakkalapalli village fields, Rudrampet Panchayat. One
B.Rama Subba Reddy and M.Ravi Kumar Reddy are the attestors and one
Noor Mohammad is document writer.
34. In Ex.B.1 recitals it is specifically mentioned that as to prevent further complications among her children, she is executing Ex.B.1 Reg.Will with free will, volition and in good state of mind. She further mentioned, she is having five children, i.e two daughters/plaintiffs and three sons/ defendants 1 to 3, he along with her husband performed the marriages of their children, her daughters are living happily with their respective husbands. Her husband died on 31.5.2017, after his death, through Reg.Will dt.6.12.2004 she inherited the properties of her husband. After some transactions below mentioned properties are remained with her. At the time of marriages, her daughters were given properties in the form of cash and movables. She specifically narrated the financial, physical and health conditions of her sons. Regarding movable properties she mentioned situationally she has presented her gold jewelry to her daughters and daughters-in-law, by the date of execution of Ex.B.1 jewelry weared by her are only with her. In view of above said circumstances she bequeathed above said properties in favour of his sons equally through Ex.B.1 reg.will.
O.S.No.269/201418P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
35. As per the recitals of Ex.B.1 will, items No.1 to 3 of plaint schedule are referred as schedule properties and they are bequeathed in favour of defendants 1 to 3 equally. Though plaintiffs pleaded that Ex.A.4 is the last will/ testimony of their mother, but in her cross examination P.W.1/ 1st plaintiff admitted Ex.B.1 shown to her as the Reg.Will dt.30.12.2013 executed by their mother.
36.On this point the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that,at the time of their cross examination PW.1, PW.2 did not admit the execution of
Ex.B.1, they just identified and admitted the photgraph of Rukminamma, on that Ex.B.1 will deed was marked. However mere marking of document does not prove the due execution, the person relying on the document and who wants to use the said will in the evidence has to prove the due execution as per the law.
37. On this aspect plaintiffs relied on a decision reported in AIR 1971
Supreme court 1895 (V 58 C 389) in between Sait Tarajee khimchand and others Vs Yelamarti satyam and others wherein their lordship in
Para No.15 their lordship held that:
The plaintiffs wanted to rely on Exhibits A-12 and A-13, the day book and the ledger respectively. The plaintiffs did not prove these books. There is no reference to these books in the judgments. The mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents. It is common place to say that the negative cannot be proved. The proof of the plaintiffs' books of account became important because the plaintiffs' accounts were impeached and falsified by the defendants' case of larger payments than those admitted by the plaintiffs. The irresistible inference arises that the plaintiffs' books would not have supported the plaintiffs.
38.Regarding Ex.B.1, P.W.1 deposed the registered document shown to him contains photographs of their mother, it is executed by her. She again
O.S.No.269/201419P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
stated the said document shown to her has been executed by their mother and identified Ex.B.1 presented before her as the said document Reg.Will dt.30.12.2013. PW.2 attestor of Ex.A.4/Ex.A.15 will relied by the defendants, in his cross examination deposed, he know Rukmanamma since 30 years, she died in the year 2014, he know the family affairs of Rukmanamma. He specifically deposed Ex.B.1 will was executed by Rukmanamma, it is a registered will, during her life time Rukmanamma only informed him about execution of Ex.B.1. He further admitted in Ex.B.1 Reg.Will he is not an attestor, one Ravi Kumar Reddy and Rama Subba Reddy are the attestors of that document. Here PW.1 not only identified the signature of her mother but also stated that the document Ex.B.1 is executed by her mother. More than the evidence of PW.1, the evidence of PW.2 regarding Ex.B.1 adds credibility to the due execution of will deed.
39. At this point one of the contention of defendants is, if really Ex.B.1 was not executed by Rukmanamma with free will and volition the testator would have inform the same to P.W.2 that Ex.B.1 was not executed with free will and volition. Though P.W.2 is not a witness to Ex.B.1 will, he specifically deposed one Ravi Kumar Reddy and Rama Subba Reddy are the attestors. As per the above description of Ex.B.1 said Ravi Kumar Reddy and
Rama Subba Reddy are the attestors. Even P.W.1 did not deny Ex.B.1 document, further deposed that Ex.B.1 document shown to her is a
Registered will dt.30.12.2013 executed by their mother.
40. To prove due execution of Ex.B.1 Reg.Will defendants produced the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2, document Ex.B.1. D.W.1 is 3rd defendant, D.W.2 is one of the attestor of Ex.B.1 Reg.will. D.W.2 in his examination in chief deposed N.Rukminamma, wife of N.Gopal/ mother of D.W.1 has executed a
Reg.Will dt.30.12.2013 bequeathing her properties. The said Ex.B.1 Reg.will
O.S.No.269/201420P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
is attested by him and one B.Rama Subba Reddy, the will was drafted as per the instructions of N.Rukminamma, after that contents were read over to her, she put her thumb impression in the document, after that himself and
Rama Subba Reddy, have signed in the will as attestors, they saw the
Rukminamma putting her thumb impression in the will, and the said
Rukminamma saw B.Rama Subbareddy, and himself putting their signatures as attestors. The will is scribed by N.Noor Mohammad, he along with B.Rama
Subba Reddy, acted as identifying witnesses in the said will. It is specifically mentioned the will dated 30.12.2013 was executed by the said
N.Rukminamma in a sound disposing state of mind with free will and volition bequeathing her properties in favour of her sons.
41. In his cross examination, D.W.2 deposed at the time of registration of
Ex.B1 will her three sons were present, as her health condition was not good, she executed Ex.B.1. He further admitted that as per the instructions of son of Rukminamma will was prepared. On the above said evidence contention of plaintiff is, Rukminamma was not with intention to execute Ex.B.1 Reg.Will, her sons only got prepared Ex.B.1 on their instructions, she was not in a position to walk, then she was brought to the registered office in an auto and forced her to execute Ex.B.1 by affixing her thumb impression and got document registered forcibly. The contention of plaintiffs is, above said circumstances shows that the Ex.B.1 will was not executed with free will and volition of testator.
42.One of the main contention of plaintiffs is, mere appearance of signature or thumb impression of the executant does not itself infers that she herself with free will and volition executed the document and recitals therein are instructed by her. When there is no evidence regarding said
O.S.No.269/201421P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
preparation of document on the instructions of executant, it can conclude that the document is not executed by the said executant.
43.On this aspect plaintiffs relied on the decision reported in AIR 1992
Madhya Pradesh 22 in between Ramjan khan and others Vs. Baba
Raghunath dass and other wherein their lordship in Para – 15 their lordship held that “Coming to the agreement to sell (Ext.1) both the courts below have held that the document is not genuine and is a forged one, and this finding being based on appreciation of evidence is a finding of fact. But. as much argument was advanced, I have to look to the evidence in relation to the execution of the document and its genuineness. Under section 67 of the
Evidence Act execution of document has to be proved, which denotes a conscious act of subscribing to a document. In order to prove the execution of a document it must be shown that the person executing it consciously subscribed to it in the sense that he put his mark or signature on it after having known and understood its contents. Mere proof that the person's signature appears on the document cannot, by itself, amount to execution of the document. It is also settled that if an illiterate person affixes his thumb mark to a document, the onus to prove that the document was properly explained to the person affixing his thumb mark so as to make him understand its true import is on the person relying on the document.
44. Another contention of plaintiffs is, they do not know about execution of Ex.B.1 will by their mother, document is come from the custody of beneficiaries, the document excludes plaintiffs share which was alloted to them in Ex.A.4, hence the above said circumstances is also doubtful circumstances. The burden is on the propounders of the will to clear the said ambiguities.
45. Another judgment relied by the plaintiffs is the Honourable Supreme
Court reported in AIR 2015 SC. 2149 in between Jagadish Chand
O.S.No.269/201422P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
Sharma Vs. Narain Singh Saini wherein their lordship held that where the will was not read over explained to the executant in the presence of attestor, nor he had put his signature after having got acknowledgement of due execution of the will, inference that can be drawn that it is suspicious.
46.The main contention of the plaintiff is the burden on the propounder of the will to dispell the suspicious circumstances to admit the will as genuine document. On this aspect they relied on a decision reported in 2001 0
Supreme (Mad) 611 2001 0 AIR (Mad) 370 in High Court of Judicature at Madras in between P. Sivasubramaniam vs S. Karthikumar and another wherein their lordship in Para – 16 their held that - In (Kalyan
Singh V. Chhoti), the Supreme Court has held thus (at Pp. 402-03 of AIR) :
"A Will is one of the most solemn documents known to law. The executant of the Will cannot be called to deny the execution or to explain the circumstances in which it was executed. It is therefore, essential that trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence should be produced before the
Court to establish genuineness and authenticity of the Will. It must be stated that the factum of execution and validity of the Will cannot be determined merely by considering the evidence produced by the propounder. In order to
Judge the credibility of witnesses and disengage the truth from falsehood
the Court is not confined only to their testimony and demeanour. It would be open to the Court to consider circumstances brought out in the evidence or which appear from the nature and contents of the documents itself. It would be also open to the Court to look into the surrounding circumstances as well as inherent improbabilities of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the evidence adduced by the party."
Applying the above tests given by the Supreme Court, it has to be necessarily stated that the propounder of the Will has neither removed nor dispelled anyone of the above stated suspicious circumstances. After careful consideration of the rival submissions and the evidence adduced, the Court is of the view that Ex.P1 Will could not have come into existence on 29-12-1992, as contended by the plaintiff's side and that Ex.P1 document cannot be called as a
O.S.No.269/201423P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
genuine document. It is true that any and every circumstance is not a suspicious circumstance.
47.On this aspect they relied on a decision reported in 1998 (3)
Supreme 504 Supreme Court of India in between Gurdial Kaur And
Others vs Kartar Kaur And Otherswhere in their lord held that:
Cases referred: Rani Purnima Devi And Another vs Kumar
Khagendra Narayan Dev and another, AIR 1962 SC 567 (PARA – 3)
AIR 1959 SC 443, (PARA – 3) Evidence ACT : S 102, S. 68 SUCCESSION
ACT : S. 59, S. 61, S. 63
Important Point: Where there is any suspicious circumstances about a will, be a registered will, the obligation is cast on the propounder of the will do dispel suspicious circumstances otherwise court will not accept it to be a said will.
In para – 3 their lordship held that - The law is well-settled that if there is suspicious circumstance about the execution of the will, it is the duty of the person seeking declaration about the validity of the will to dispel such suspicious circumstances. In this connection, , reference may be made to the decision of this court in Rani Purnima Debi and another Vs.Kumar
Khagendra Narayan Deb and another (AIR 1962 SC 567). It has been held in the said decision that if a will being registered and having regard to the other circumstances, is accepted to be a genuine, the mere fact that the will is a registered will it will not by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicions regarding the validity of the will where suspicions exist. it has been held that the broad statement by witness that he had witnessed the testator admitting execution of the will was not sufficient to dispel suspicions regarding due execution and attestation of the will. it has been specifically held that registration of the will by itself was not sufficient to remove the suspicion,
Relying on an earlier decision of this Court reported in AIR 1959 SC 443, it has been held in the said decision that where the propounder was unable to dispel the suspicious circumstances which surrounded the question of valid execution and attestation of the will, no letters of administration in favour of the propounder could be granted.
O.S.No.269/201424P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
48.Another judgment relied by the plaintiffs is reported in 2007 (2)
Supreme760 Supreme Court of India in between the parties Om Prakash and others Vs. Shiv Kumar and others wherein their lordship in Para No.6 held that -
Both the first appellate court as well as the High Court have held that the burden was on the defendants who were the propounders of the Will to remove any suspicious circumstances, but the defendant-appellants have failed to do so. Various circumstances have been noticed by the first appellate court and the High Court in this connection and they came to the conclusion that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the alleged Will said to have been executed by Smt. Ram Ditti, and the defendant-appellants have not been able to remove those suspicions. It is well settled in law that the burden is on the propounder of the Will to remove any suspicious circumstances.
49.Another judgment relied by the plaintiffs is reported in 2006 (8)
Supreme 771 Supreme Court of India in between B.Venkatamuni Vs.
C.J Ayodhya Ram Singh and others n wherein their lordship in Para – 18 held that:
In Smt. Guro Vs. Atma singh and others (1992) 2 SCR 30], this Court has opined "With regard to proof of a will, the law is well- settled that the mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement prescribed in the case of a will by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where, however there were suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the will could be accepted as genuine. Such suspicious circumstances may be a shaky signature, a feeble mind and unfair and unjust disposal of property or the propounder himself taking a leader part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit. The presence of
O.S.No.269/201425P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicion before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator."
50.Another judgment relied by the plaintiffs is reported in 2001 0
Supreme (MP) 180 2001 0 AIR (MP) 250; 2001 4 MPHT 300 in between the parties High court of Madhya Pradesh in between Kishan
Singh ahluwalia Vs. Sheela Saxena wherein their lord held that:
In para 17 In cases where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple is between the plaintiff and the defendant. In such cases, it becomes a matter of Court's conscience and then the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the Will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the Will was duly executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the Will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the Will.
In para 33 The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the inaccurate recitals contained in the Will are sufficient pointer towards the incapability of the testatrix to understand the contents of the
Will. If the Will according to the propounder had been read out twice to the testatrix and she had been able to hear what was read out to her, it is not understandable as to why these inaccuracies were not rectified then and there.
In Para 39 Their lordship held that – In the case of Pushpavathi Vs.
Chandraja Kadamba, reported in AIR 1972 SC 2492, it was held that where the signature of the testator is challenged as forged signature and the will does not come from the custody of a public authority or a family solicitor the fact that the disposition made in the will were unnatural, improbable or unfair would undoubtedly create some doubt about the will.
In para 44 In a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Omprakash v. Saraswati Bai, reported in 1998(1) MPLJ183, it has been pointed out that the burden lies only on the person who sets up theory of
O.S.No.269/201426P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
Will to prove its due execution, and to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the document/Will.
51.Herein this case, evidence of D.W.2 reveals that after Ex.B.1 will was drafted contents were read over to her, then executant put her thumb impression on the document. It is true that neither in his examination in chief nor in the cross examination D.W.2 deposed after hearing the contents read over to her, whether testator accepted them as true and correct. But
P.W.2 attestor of Exs.A.4/A.15 who is also known persons to testator
Rukminamma, deposed Rukminamma informed him about execution of
Ex.B.1 will, one Ravi Kuamr Reddy, and Rama Subba Reddy are the attestors of the said document. On this point contention of defendants is if really
Ex.B.1 will was executed against to the will of testator Rukminamma, she would have informed the same to P.W.2. There is no evidence on record, to conclude that during her last days, Rukminamma was suffering with mental ill health or with any disease which unable her to understand things.
P.W.1 in her evidence deposed one week prior to the death she saw her mother by that time she was in sound state of mind. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that in Ex.A.4/A.15 will, the financial position and other health conditions of their children are not explained by the testator
Rukminamma, but in Ex.B.1 specific details of defendants 1 to 3 are mentioned which shows that it is a got up document, brought into existence to defeat the interest of plaintiffs. Regarding this contention of defendants is, as the testator excluding daughters in the will, she has given specific reasons for exclusion of her daughters and specifically bequeathing her properties to her sons.
52. In her cross examination P.W.1/1st plaintiff admitted her husband is a
Retired Principal of Polytechnic college, Hyderabad, her elder daughter is
O.S.No.269/201427P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
settled in USA and her son is settled in Australia, her second daughter is a house wife. Husband of 2nd plaintiff is working in Kolar Gold Fields, her children are also settled in Bangalore as Software engineers. Regarding defendants P.W.1 deposed 1st defendant is a blind person, he is a retired music teacher, his children are prosecuting their studies. In his cross examination it is suggested to D.W.1 that 1st defendant is a Tabala and Fidel artist, Government has alloted a house site patta towards appreciation for his art, in that house site only he constructed house and he has been residing in that house. Regarding 2nd defendant, P.W.1 deposed he do cultivation, D.W.1 also deposed second defendant running a petty shop, at present he is residing in Anantapuram in his own house.
53. Said health conditions and financial conditions of defendants 1 to 3 described in Ex.B.1 will deed are not denied by the plaintiffs. Regarding 3rd defendant she deposed she do not know that 3rd defendant met with an accident, as per her knowledge he got knee replacement. In Ex.B1 it is specifically mentioned her daughters are married and they have been living happily with their respective husbands. Regarding defendants 1 to 3 testator mentioned his son Boja Raju is blind person and innocent, he is not having much worldly knowledge, her second son Rama Krishna is in financial crisis, even in the age of 60s he is facing financial crisis and his 3rd son is a small employee in RTC and he met with an accident and suffered physical disability due to that there is possibility of sustaining difficulties in his life. As her sons are suffered with above difficulties and as they looked after her well, she bequeathed all her properties equally among her sons.
54.A careful perusal of above evidence this court is of the conclusion that testator Rukminamma with her free will and volition executed ExB1 Will and that is her last testimony. Though plaintiffs mentioned in their plaint, that
O.S.No.269/201428P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
their mother during her life time maintained SB A/c No.021710011101684 and was having cash balance of Rs.50,000/- at the time of her death, but they did not show the said movable property as one of the item in the plaint schedule and did not claim for partition of said property, they just implead item No.4 gold of 50 thulas as per orders in I.A.614/2015 dt.5.7.2017. At one point in her cross examination Pw1 deposed she only sought for the relief in respect of property kept in the locker, it comprises cash of Rs.50,000/- and gold of 50 thulas.
55. In Ex.B.1 it is specifically mentioned by testator that during her life time situationally she has given away her gold jewelry to her daughters and her daughters-in-law, at present she is having gold jewelry which are weared by her at present. Regarding said jewelry D.W.1 also admitted that their mother was having one gold chain weighing about 4 thulas, four bangles of 4 thulas and one pair Kammalu of 4 thulas, he along with his brothers taken remaining jewelry of their mother, some of the jewelry were used by their mother for medical expenses. He further admitted he along with his brothers equally taken the amount of Rs.50,000/- kept in the bank account of their mother. In Ex.B.1 testator specifically mentioned that she has gifted away all her gold jewelry to her daughters and her daughters in law except the jewelry weared by her. The evidence of D.W.1 reveals that balance gold jewelry of their mother i.e 14 thulas i.e four bangles of 4 thulas, gold chain weighing about 4 thulas, and one pair Kammalu of 4 thulas were equally taken by them. They also admitted that they taken balance amount of Rs.50,000/- kept in the bank account of their mother.
56.One of the contention of plaintiffs is as per amended Succession law being the daughters, they are also treated as coparceners and they are
O.S.No.269/201429P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
entitled to the share in the coparcenary property like sons. On this aspect they relied on the following judgments:
First one is reported in 2011 (7) Supreme 40 Supreme Court of
India in between Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another Vs. Chakiri
Yanado and another wherein their lordship in Para – 14 held that
The new section 6 provides for parity of rights in the coparcenary property among male and female members of a joint Hindu family on and from September 9, 2005. The Legislature has now conferred substantive right in favour of the daughters. According to the new section 6 , the daughter of a copercener becomes a coparcener by birth in her own rights and liabilities in the same manner as the son. The declaration in section 6 that the daughter of the coparcener shall have same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as she would have been a son is unambiguous and unequivocal. Thus, on and from September 9, 2005, the daughter is entitled to a share in the ancestral property and is a coparcener as if she had been a son.
57.Another judgment of Supreme Court of India reported in 2020 (5)
ALD SC 49, in between Vineeta sharma Vs. Rakesh sharma and
others in Civil appeal no. diary no. 32601 of 2018 wherein their lordship held that
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 6 (As amended by Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005), Provisions contained in substituted
Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on daughter born before or after amendment in same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. Rights can be claimed by daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6 (1) as to disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20 th day of December, 2004. Since right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005. coparcener and daughter do not need to be alive as on date of amendment. And cesser of Commonality is not conclusive proof of partition, merely by reason that members are separated in food and residence for convenience and separate residence at different places due to service or
O.S.No.269/201430P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
otherwise does not show separation. Right to claim partition is a significant basic feature of coparcenary, and a coparcener is one who can claim partition.
58.A careful perusal of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that there is no dispute as the fact, that the daughters also treated as coparceners like sons, they are also having equal rights as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act in the coparcenary property. But here all the properties are absolute properties of father of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3, he bequeathed his properties in favour of his wife Rukminamma,
Rukminamma being the title holder of item No.3 house property situate at
D.No.6-4-499, and who succeeded the items No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties i.e. plots No.20 and 21 in Sy.No.145/1B, executed Ex.B.1 will, which is categorically proved by the defendants with the above said evidence. Hence except above said gold jewelry which were weared by
Rukminamma and cash of Rs.50,000/- kept in the bank account of
Rukminamma, no property is left over for partition among her children.
Hence the plaintiffs are entitled for the 1/5th share each in the said gold jewelry and cash of Rs.50,000/- of Rukminamma.
Accordingly the issues are answered.
Issue No.4: To what relief ?
59.In the result the suit is partly decreed with costs with preliminarily decree, for partition and separate possession of movable properties I.e 4 thulas of gold chain, 4 thulas of gold bangles, and 4 thulas of Kammalu of deceased N.Rukmanamma, and cash of Rs.50,000/- kept in her bank account, by dividing the said movable properties into five equal shares and allotting one such share each to the plaintiffs 1, 2, defendants 2 and 3
O.S.No.269/201431P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
and one such share to the legal heirs of deceased 1st defendant. The suit in respect of items No.1 to 3 of plaint schedule properties is dismissed.
Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 26nd day of March, 2024.
Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Plaintiff Defendants
P.W.1: SujathaD.W.1:N.Subramanyam
P.W.2: P.Sreenivasa Babu D.W.2:M.Ravi Kumar Reddy
P.W.3: B.Venu Gopal
Exhibits marked for plaintiff
Ex.A.1: Genealogy Extract
Ex.A.2: Death certificate of N.Rukmanamma obtained through Mee Seva dt.9.5.2014 Ex.A.3: Certified copy of Reg.Will dt.6.12.2004
Ex.A.4: Certified copy of Reg.Will dt.29.12.2012
Ex.A.5: Office copy of legal notice issued to defendants dt.11.4.2014 Ex.A.6: Served acknowledgments three in number
Ex.A.7: Served copy of reply notice issued by defendant dt.19.4.2014 Ex.A.8: : Valuation certificate issued by Sub Registrar, Anantapuram for plot No.20 Ex.A.9: Valuation certificate issued by Sub Registrar, Anantapuram for plot No.21 Ex.A.10 : Valuation certificate issued by Sub Registrar, Anantapuram for plot No.36 Ex.A.11 : Certified copy of gift deed doc.997/2009 dt.21.2.2009
Ex.A.12 : Certified copy of gift deed doc.995/2009 dt.21.2.2009
Ex.A.13:: Certified copy of gift deed doc.3263/2013 dt.17.5.2013
O.S.No.269/201432P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu
Ex.A.14 : Certified copy of gift deed doc.996/2009 dt.21.2.2009
Ex.A.15 : Reg.Will dt.29.12.2012 vide doc.No.344/BIII/2012
Exhibits marked for defendants
Ex.B.1: Will dated 30.12.2013 executed by the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants
Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram.
O.S.No.269/201433P.S.C.J.Court, Anantapuramu