NYAPATI NARAYANA RAO Vs. MADHAVALAPU PURUSHOTHAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision in this case is whether the will (Ex. H) said to have been executed by one Seshagiri Row on 4 August, 1926, is genuine and valid.

(2.) Seshagiri Rao had two sons, the plaintiff and the first defendant; defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant. Many years ago the plaintiff had been taken in adoption by Seshagiri Rao's wife's maternal uncle; it happened that in the family of adoption the plaintiff did not get much property and the evidence establishes that the plaintiff had been pressing his natural father to make some provision for him and that that the natural father intended to do so. The first defendant on the other hand was educated at his father's expense till he took his B.L. degree, and settled down to practise at Guntur. The first defendant no doubt became a man with a large family and did not perhaps succeed as well at the profession as he might have desired and he might be justified in feeling that his father ought to have treated him more liberally than he had done. But the evidence leaves no doubt in our mind that the first defendant was not altogether in the good graces of his father and that even making allowance for the first defendant's financial position the plaintiff stood in greater need of help from his father. There is also indisputable evidence that the father was consulting his lawyer friends and relations as to the best manner in which he could effectively carry out his intention to make some provision for the plaintiff. As the father and the first defendant were undoubtedly members of a joint Hindu family and some of the properties which the father proposed to deal with were joint family properties, the father seems to have been advised that unless some arrangement could be effected by agreement with the first defendant, it would be necessary for him to get divided from the first defendant by a notice of intention to become so divided. Ex. C a draft notice prepared with this object in view by P.W. 9 some years before, makes it clear that the father was clearly aware that this was the only alternative open to him, unless it was possible to arrange amicably with, the first defendant to benefit the plaintiff to some extent.

(3.) [Their Lordships after discussing the evidence and finding that the will was executed by the deceased when he was in a sound disposing state of mind proceeded.]