N ANANTHA KUMAR Vs. P ANJANEYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri C.R.Pratap Reddy, Counsel representing the appellant and Sri srinivas, Counsel representing Sri E.S.Ramachandra Murthy, Counsel representing the respondents. The only substantial question of law which would arise for consideration in the present Second Appeal is as hereunder :

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff had taken this Court thoroughly through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the findings recorded by the appellate Court and had explained that when both the branches are representing only late Seetamma and having held that Seetamma died testate, there is no question of the 1st respondent becoming a co-sharer or co-owner in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the genuineness of the Will is not in serious controversy and definitely it cannot be also especially in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below relating to the genuineness of the Will as such. The learned Counsel also pointed out that in the light of Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 definitely Seetamma was competent to execute the Will in question and hence negativing the relief on such a ground and reversing the well considered Judgment of the Court of first instance is totally unsustainable.

(3.) Per contra, Sri Srinivas, the learned Counsel representing the respondents would maintain that the appellant and the 1st respondent represent the two branches of Seetamma as reflected from the pedigree and in the light of the clear findings which had been recorded by the appellate Court the remedy prayed for by the appellant/plaintiff is a misconceived remedy and hence the appellate Court is well justified in reversing the Judgment and decree made by the Court of first instance.