C J AYODHYA RAMI SINGH Vs. B VENKATAMUNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge Chittoor Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao in O.S.No.30 of 1975 dated 28-10-1981 whereby the suit came to be dismissed and thus the plaintiffs are appellants and the first respondent is the defendant in the suit. The respondents are the tenants in one of the suit properties situated at Tirupathi. Reference of them as plaintiffs and defendant would serve the convenience and that will be done.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed O.P.No.102 of 1970 for Probate and Letters of Administration which was opposed by the defendant-caveator. After some prolonged litigation up to the level of High Court, the matter came to be litigious and was registered as suit. The plaintiffs sought for Probate and Letters of Administration based upon the will dated 23-3-1968 said to have been executed by one Akkayamma whereunder the suit properties were bequeathed in favour of plaintiff No. 1, namely, C. J. Ayodhya Ram Singh. Plaintiff No.2 is the younger brother, plaintiff No.3 is the younger sister and plaintiff No.4 is the mother of plaintiff No.1. Fourth plaintiff died pending the proceedings and plaintiffs 1 to 3 were continued as the legal representatives of the deceased mother to represent the estate. Smt.Akkayamma is said to be the kept mistress of Jai Singh, the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the husband of plaintiff No.4. They lived together for three or four decades like man and wife at Arkonam. The plaintiffs are the residents of Chittoor. Therefore, essentially, plaintiffs 2 to 4 have joined only as formal parties to support the case of the first plaintiff and they have not claimed separate right in the suit properties or relief in the suit. On behalf of the plaintiffs it was pleaded that Akkayamma having lived with Jai Singh like a wife for a long time had love and affection towards plaintiffs 1 to 3 and when she became old, as a token of expression of such love and affection, bequeathed the suit properties in favour of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs having filed the petition for Probate and Letters of Administration had to meetresistance from the defendant-caveator who not only called the will as a forged document but also set up his own relationship with the deceased Akkayamma calling himself as a reversioner. The defendant denying other material allegations made in the petition, which became the plaint, challenged foe right of first plaintiff to get Probate and Letters of Administration as claimed and set up his own legal heirship and sought for the dismissal of the suit with costs. On such pleadings the parties went for trial wherein Plaintiff No.1 examined himself as P.W.4 and three olher witnesses, viz., P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked as many as 14 documents numbered as Exs. A- 1 to A-14. On behalf of the defence, the defendant examined himself as D.W.4 and three other witnesses viz., D. W. 1 to 3 and got marked 26 documents numbered as Exs. B-1 to B-26. These were the issues:

(3.) Mr. Suresh, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent resisted all the contentions of Mr. Manohar, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and has totally supported the findings, reasoning and the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. In particular, he contends that the case of the plaintiffs was based upon the forged will with lot of suspicious circumstances taking the assistance of interested witnesses, the scribe and the attestors and depending upon some materials of LateAkkayamma to put up a show that she might have executed a will in the form of Ex. A-1. As a whole, he contends that this appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.