(1.) Plaintiffs in O.S.No.168 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, are the appellants. They filed the suit for declaration of their title to the plaint schedule properties and a consequential injunction, and subsequently got amended the consequential relief into that of possession. For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.
(2.) The case, in brief, of the plaintiffs is that Bhujanga Rao, Ganga Raju and Veeriah were brothers. 1st plaintiff and father of 2nd plaintiff are the sons of Veeriah. 2nd defendant is the brother of 1st defendant, who is the widow of Ganga Raju, 3rd defendant is the son and 4th defendant is the daughter of 2nd defendant. 5th defendant is the husband of 4th defendant. Ganga Raju and 1st defendant fostered the 1st plaintiff since they did not beget children. Prior to his sudden and untimely death on 7-8-1983 due to heart attack, Ganga Raju had on 5-8-1983 executed a Will in a sound disposing state of mind bequeathing the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiffs with absolute rights and expressed a wish therein that 1st plaintiff and 4th defendant should get married. Ignoring that wish, 4th defendant married 5th defendant. 1st defendant under the influence of defendants 2 to 5 obtained possession of the plaint schedule properties and started denying the title of the plaintiffs to the suit properties and executed settlement deeds in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of defendants 3 and 4. Hence the suit.
(3.) Defendants filed a common written statement admitting the relationship set out in the plaint and denying the other allegations, including the alleged fostering of the 1st plaintiff by Ganga Raju and 1st defendant and contending that Ganga Raju died intestate very suddenly due to heart attack and the Will set up by the plaintiffs is a forged document and that plaintiffs were never in possession of any of the plaint schedule properties.