(1.) This appeal has been preferred by defendants Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit and their alienees the defendants Nos. 24, 27 and 29 against the judgment of the Additional Temporary Subordinate Judge of Guntur by which he has held that the plaintiffs (respondents) are entitled as reversionary heirs to a two-third share of the properties which belonged to one Nayanappa, the remaining one-third being found to belong to defendants 1, 2 and 3, the other reversionary heirs. The relationship of the parties is set out in the pedigree attached to the plaint. Nayanappa was the grand-son of one Mudigonda Brahmanna Ayyavaru, who left a number of sons of whom Mallappa Ayyavaru was the great grand-father of defendants 1, 2 and 3, Visvapathi was the father of Nayanappa and Chandrayya was the grand-father of the 1st plaintiff and great grand-father of the 2nd plaintiff by adoption. Nayanappa at his death which took place some time about 1832 left two widows, Papamma who died in 1880 and Syamalamba who died in 1906. These two widows were sisters. Papamma had a daughter called Viyyamma and Viyyamma had a son called Lingayya, the father of defendants 4, 5 and 6. Viyyamma died on 20th October 1903, that is long after her mother s death, but three years before her step-mother Syamalamba s death. Lingayya died on the 7th February 1903, that is, during the lifetime of his mother Viyyamma, a few months before her death.
(2.) The contention of the appellants is that the property belonged to Lingayya, the father of defendants 4, 5 and 6, the source of his title being twofold, firstly under a will purported to have been executed by Nayanappa sometime in August 1832 (Exhibit XXV in the case) and secondly under a surrender effected by the two widows of Nayanappa and concurred in or ratified by Viyyamma, the daughter of Nayanappa by Papamma. The learned Subordinate Judge was not satisfied with the genuineness and bona fides of the document propounded as Nayanappa s will and Mr. Venkatarama Aiyar, the learned pleader for the appellants has not convinced us that the finding of the Subordinate Judge on the point is wrong. It may be that not much importance ought to be attached to some of the circumstances which influenced the Subordinate Judge in holding against the genuineness of the will, but the main reasons given by him are sound. It appears that the two widows divided among themselves the estate of their husband Nayanappa. But some time about 1864, the elder widow was anxious that the entire property should be made over to Lingayya, her daughter s son and disputes arose probably in this very connection between her and her cowidow Syamalamba. They however came to an amicable understanding the result of which is shown in Exhibit IV described as a Kararnama or deed of agreement executed on the 1st August 1868 by Papamma and Lingavya. It recites that Papamma had executed on the 1st June 1868 and got registered a dakhal deed (Exhibit XXVII) of the entire property in favour of Lingayya without the knowledge or consent of Syamalamba though in accordance with the terms of a similar document previously executed by both of them (i.e., Papamma and Syamalamba) on the 9th March 1864 (Exhibit XXVI) and that as Syamilamba objected to this, Papamma and her grandson Lingayya agreed that Syamalamba should receive 8 acres 37 cents of land of which she was to enjoy 5 acres 4 cents absolutely and the remaining 3 acres 33 cents: for her life. The rest was to be enjoyed by Lingayya. The total land inherited by the two widows from Nayanappa amounted to about 33 acres. It is a fact of much significance that no mention is made in Exhibit IV of any will by Nayanappa in favour of Lingayya. In the document however of 1864 (Exhibit XXVI) referred to in Exhibit IV, as it now stands there is mention of a will by Nayanappa but the Subordinate Judge finds that the word in the vernacular mentioning the will are a later interpolation. It undoubtedly does look, as he points out, that something had been erased and the words in question substituted in its place. He further observes that the handwriting of the words in question is different from the rest and that it is unlikely that the widows should have referred to their husband without using the usual honorific words. Exhibit XXIX which is an application made by Papamma on 20th November 1875 to the Collector for transfer of registry with respecb to all the lands left by Nayanappa in the name of her grandson undoubtedly does mention the will of Nayanappa. But in this application the other widow Syamalamba did not join and it is also to be noted that it ignores the compromise arrived at between the widows by Exhibit IV. We have thus the fact that in no document to which the younger widow was a party is there any mention of a will by Nayanappa although it was to be expected that if such a will exiated it would have been relied on at the time of the execution of Exhibit IV and recited therein and also in the dakhal deed of 1864. The mention in the latter document is as I have said, open to grave doubts and is apparently a subsequent interpolation.
(3.) The alleged will (Exhibit XXV) provides that the two widows were to enjoy the entire property during their life-time and afterwards " to cause it to devolve on our daughter Viyyamma or the members of her family without spoiling or breaking it." The date of execution is given according to two eras Nandana and Salivahana Saka 1753. The two admittedly do not correspond for Sravana Sudha 15 of Nandana (August 1832) was Salivahana Saka 1754 and not 1753. The mistake was not likely to have occurred unless the document was written some time afterwards and the man who got it up not being familiar with the calculation of these eras, inserted the Salivahana Saka merely by consulting an old almanac which used to give the previous Saka as corresponding to the current Nandana. No such mistake is to be found in Exhibit XXVI which was written in 1864. The will was produced for the first time before the revenue authorities in 1906 though mention of a will was made in 1875. Taking all the circumstances into consideration it is not possible to say that the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the will is not shown to be genuine and bona fide is wrong.