KATAMANENAL RATTAMMA Vs. KATAMNANI KOLLAMMA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this appeal mainly relates to the genuineness of a will dated 9th May, 1951 said to have been executed by one Nageswara Rao.

(2.) It appears that Nageswara Rao was a much married man; appellant-plaintiff was his first wife from whom he had a daughter while respondent no. 1 (defendant no. 1) was his third wife having no issue from him. He died on 7th June, 1951 at his residence in Raynapadu village. According to the appellant-plaintiff he died intestate and, therefore, she as one of the two co-widows became entitled to possession and enjoyment of one half of the properties left by him. She, therefore, filed suit no. 218 of 1951 claiming partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit properties. The suit was resisted by the first defendant (third wife) as well as by one Rama Swami (second defendant) and the nephew of the deceased by setting up the will said to have been executed by Nageswara Rao on 9th May, 1951. It appears that under the will Nageswara Rao gave two acres of land to his nephew Rama Swami and rest of the properties to his third wife. The appellant-plaintiff disputed the genuineness as well as the due execution of the will. The Trial Court held that the will had been duly executed and was the last will and the testament of the deceased testator and dismissed the appellant-plaintiff's suit on 3rd Sept., 1960. 1 he appellant-plaintiff carried the matter in appeal to the High Court being First Appeal No. 102 of 1961, which was heard by a learned Single Judge, who took the view that the propounder of the will had not satisfactorily explained certain suspicious circumstances touching the execution of the will and that, therefore, the will was not properly proved to the satisfaction of the Court's conscience. In that view of the matter the learned Single Judge decreed the suit. Both the defendants preferred a Letters Patent Appeal and a Division Bench, which heard the same, reversed the view taken by the learned Single Judge and affirmed the view taken by the trial Court, restoring the dismissal of the suit. It is this decision of the Division Bench that has been challenged by the appellant-plaintiff before us in the instant appeal.

(3.) On a consideration of the provisions contained in the disputed will dated 9th May, 1951 and after hearing counsel on either side we are satisfied that the Division Bench was right in coming to the conclusion that the will was a genuine document and its due execution has been satisfactorily proved by the propounders of the will by properly explaining the so-called suspicious circumstances attending the document and we think that there is little scope for interference Judgment dated Feb. 2, 1982 in Civil Appeal No. 1739 of 1969 with the findings recorded by the Division Bench on the so-called suspicious circumstances.