Vishnu Panthulu Pandurangam. S/o late v. Ramulu Service R/o H.No'

... Defendants / RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2001 (cMP. NO:4 120 0F 2001) Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the Judgment and decree in o.s.No.129 of 1993 on the file of the vll senior civil court, ccc, Hyderabad dt: B- r2-2000 during the pendency of the above appeal l.A. NO: 2 OF 2001(c MP. NO: 4121 OF 200'tl Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to order of Vll senior civil Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad to the Re-delivery oi possession to the petitioners in so far as the lst floor of the suit schedule prop"rty in o.S-No.129 of 1993 on the file of the Vll senior civil Judge Hyderabao pending disposal of the above appeal l.A. NO: 3 OF 2001(CMP. NO: 6392 OF 2001) Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ttre Higtr court may be pleaseJ to permit the petitioners/respondents i & 2 herein to initiate apfropriate actions including eviction of the respondents 4 & 5 from the suit schedule property counsel for the Appelants: sRr. A.sUDERsHAN REDDy, senior counser for SRI. M RAJENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI T. BALA MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VtJAy KUMAR HEROOR Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI A. SANJAY KISHORE The Court delivered the following Judgment: .l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CCCA No. 45 OF 200r JUDGMENT: Heard Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior' Counsel on behalf of Sri M. Rajender Reddy, learned counsel for appellants, Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the lst respondent, Sri Vijay Kumar Heroor, learned counsel for the 2"d respondent and Sri A. Sanjay Kishore, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

2. Aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment in OS No. 729 of 7993 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 08.l2.2OOO, decreeing against Defendants I to 3 and dismissing against Defendants 4 and 5, this Appeal is preferred by Defendants I and 2. During the hearing, Defendant No.1 died, hence, her legal representatives were brought on record as Appellants 3 to 5 vide order dated 1O.1 l.2O2l in {.A.No. 3 of 2017.

4. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. The undisputed facts of the case are : the suit is for declaration of right in a house property on the basis of a Will \ I Deed, for possession and damages. The suit property is a .i residential house consisting of four portions in ground and lirst floors. Originally, it belongs to one Smt. Lakshmi Devi, r,r'ho died issueless on 29.71 .1992. Plaintiffs, who are brother and sister, are children of brother of said Lakshmi Devi. They own a house adjacent to the suit house. Defendant No. 1 is sister's daughter of Lakshmi Devi, Defendant No.2 is the grand-daughter of Lakshmi Devi's another sister. The said Lakshmi Devi is a graduate of those days. It is not the case of either of rhe parties that suit property is an ancestral property. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are tenants of suit house. Plaintiff No. I rvas staying in Bihar State doing bore-well business and Plaintiff No. 2 was residing in Saudi Arabia. The said Lakshmi Devi executed two registered Wills both dated 10. 10.1988 bequeathing two portions of the suit house viz., the first floor portion to Defendant No. 1 and ground floor portion to Defendant No.2. Defendant Nos. I and 2 rest their case on these two Wills which were marked as Exs. B-1 and B-2 before the Court below. The said Lakshmi Devi executed registered Will dated 24.O4.1991 bequeathing the suit ) ) / ,.] house equally to plaintiffs, who claim on the strength of the Wili which was marked as Ex. A-1 in the Court below.

5. The disputed lacts are : the 3.d defendant claims to be the adopted son of father-in-law of Lakshmi Devi and since Lakshmi Devi died issueless, he got right over the entire suit house by iaws of inheritance. Plaintiffs claim that Ex. A-1 Will dated 24.O4.1992 is the last testament of Lakshmi Devi in their favour and the Wills, if any alleged by Defendants I and 2 (Ex. B-1 & B-2) had been stood revoked in view of the later and.last Will of the executant Lakshmi Devi, in their favour. The father- in-law of Lakshmi Devi never adopted the 3.d defendant and there is no evidence to substantiate the alteged adoption. Hence Defendants 1 to 3 and Defendants 4 and 5 through Defendants I and 2, have no right whatsoever in the suit property.

6. Defendants I and 2 claim that Lakshmi Devi used to reside with -them in her last days and they used to take care of her. Lakshmi Devi suffered mental illness in the last days. She executed two Wills Exs. B- I and B-2 in their favour. Plaintiffs withl a mala ftde intention got Ex. Al Will executed by playing fraud during the last days of Lakshmi Devi. They took I I I .1 -t\ care of Lakshmi Devi by admitting he r in Aditya Hospital. \ Ex. A-1 is not a genuine will executed in sound mental health. Defendant No. 3 contends that he is the adopted son of father- in-law of Lakshmi Devi. The said Lakshmi Devi earlier had transferred some lands in the name of his daughter and thereby she confirmed their relationship. Since she died issueless, he got right over the suit house by law of inheritance.

7. Defendants 4 and 5 are tenants and thev have no say in the title dispute.

8. To support their case, plaintiffs got examined the lst plaintiff as ['W-1. She mainly deposed about their relationship with Execu&rnt and the execution of Ex.A-1 Will. PWs 2 and 3 are attestors of Ex.A- 1 Will. They deposed execution of Ex. A- 1 Will. On behalf of defendants, the 2nd defendant and the l.t defendant came into witness box as DWs. 7 and, 2 respectively and the 3.d <lefendant as DW.s. DW-6 is the Doctor, DWs. I and 2 mainly deposed that Lakshmi Devi fell ill during her evening days and she was treated in Aditya Nursing Home, Hyderabad and Dr. T. Yadalah attended her. They deposed thar they have taken care ol Lakshmi Devi in her last days. Plaintiffs never took \ ! f care of her. Their main contention is that Will dated 24.O4.t992 which was relied upon by plaintiffs, is an engineered one and the mother of plaintiffs played fraud and.undue influence on Lakshmi Devi when she \Mas ill and got executed the said Will. It' is to be noticed that defendants, at no point of time, stated that Lakshmi Devi has undergone treatment for any mental disease.

9. Another important event to be noted is, after completion of evidence of both sides and when the matter was posted for arguments, defendants had taken out IA Nos. 1224 and, 1228 of 1999 under Section 151 CPC. Their contention is that as the medical certificates issued by Aditya Nursing Home, Hyderabad dated O2.O4.1992 ar.d 15.09.L992 were marked, to prove the saine, they want to examine Medical Officer Dr. T. Yadaiah, who personally attended Lakshmi Devi to prove her mental condition while she was undergoing treatment in the said hospital. These Applications were dismissed on

05. 11.1999. Eefendants carried the matter in Civil Revision Petitions No. 155 and 156 of 2OOO. This Court, while holding that the Court below is not at wrong in denying to issue summons to the doctor, observed and directed that Court below \ \ 6 r.s may proceed and allow the witness to be examined and cross- ..1 examined on the same day or next day if the defendant produce the witness. It was further held by this Court that 'no further oral or documentary evidence shall be allowed to be adduced. Il petitioner fails to produce witness within one week, the order has no effect. '

10. [n due obedience of the order of this Court, the Court below allowed defendants to examine the Doctor who treated Lakshmi Devi. Then the defendants examined DW-6, who is Dr. N. Bhuvaneswari but not Dr. T. Yadaiah for examination of whom defendants had taken out Applications and later, Crvil Revision Petitions. She is not a doctor of Aditya Nursing Home, but a Psychiatrist. Dr.Bhuvaneswari as DW-6 had categorically deposed that she is not the author of medical certihcates such as discharge card, etcetera to prove which defendant wanted to examine Dr.. T. Yadaiah. Against examination .of Dr. N. Bhuvaneswari, plaintifls filed CRP No. 783 of 2OOO. This Court, by order dated 10.O3.2000, eventually, held that since witness was examined, it is open for plaintiffs to contend before the Court below that evidence of DW-6 shall be / 7 eschewed from consideration and if any such objection is raised, it shall be considered at the time of argument.

11. Accordingly, an argument was adduced on behalf of plaintiffs that since DW-6 hersetf admitted that she is not the author of medical certificates marked, and also in view of the concern expressed by this Court in examining her as a witness, the evidence of DW-6 be eschewed from consideration. The Court below has rightly eschewed the evidence of DW-6 also observing that 'even otherwise the evidence of DW-6 is not of much consequence. She appears to have been brought by.the defendants to support their case. At no point of time, the defendants stated, the deceased Lakshmi Devi has undergone treatment for any mental disease, either by Dr.Yadalah or by DW-6.',

12. Regarding the element of undue influence on Lakshmi Devi and fraud played is concerned, the Court below has rightly hbld that admittedly, the 1" plaintiff was at Bihar doing his business and the 2nd plaintiff was at Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the question of putting undue influence and playing fraud on Lakshmi Devi by plaintiffs is far from truth. The trial 1 \./ IJ Court also is right in holding that since the Will relied upon b5r piaintiffs daled 24.04.1992 is the later one than the two wills dated 10.10 1988 relied upon by defendants, it can safely be held that thr. testatrix would have executed the fresh/latest will d,aLed, 24.O4.1992, in which circumstances, it is to be held that the earlier ones were eclipsed.

13. Regarding the claim of the 3'd defendant that he is I the adopted son of father-in-law of Lakshmi Devi, as such, he is entitled for suit property by law of inheritance, the Court below has rightly held that this defendant would have become eligible for this deve lopment of right by inheritance had Lakshmi Devi died intestare. But it is an admitted fact that Lakshmi Devi herself got constructed the suit property arrd she executed two Wills dated I O. lO. 1998 initially in favour of Defendants I and 2 and freshly on 24.04.1992 in favour of plaintiffs, hence, it is of no avail for r-he 3.d defendant, even if he was adopted by father_ in-law of Lakshmi Devi, to get any relielin the suit. Eventually, the Court below decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs against Defendants 1 to 3, however, dismissed the suit against I I 9 Defendants 4 and 5. A time frame of 60 days is fixed for vacation of the suit house.

14. The unsuccessful defendants i.e. Defendants 1 and 2 filed the extant Appeal. Except the grounds which were turned' down by the Court below viz. there is no cordial relation between Lakshmi Devi and plaintiffs, Defendants 1 and 2 only looked after her in her last days, plaintiffs used undue influence and played fraud on Lakshmi Devi and got executed Will dated

24.04.1992 in their favour; the 2nd plaintiff does not know any fact of the case drafted by their counsel and no new ground is urged in this Appeal. Admittedly, the deceased Lakshmi Devi executed three Wills - two dated 10. 10. 1988 in favour of Defendants I and 2 and one dated 14.O4.1992 in favour of plaintiffs. It is settled principle of law that if more than one Will is executed, the latest one will prevail. Therefore, the latest Will dated 14.O4-1992, which was executed about seven months prior to her death (she died on 29.1L.1992) will prevail over, unless the said Will is proved to be a fraud one. Though Defendants I and 2 averred that Will dated 14.04.1992 was not executed by Lakshmi Devi with free mind, they failed to prove ti) either that she suffers from mental illness and was not having free of mind at the time of execution of said Will or that plaintiffs played undue influence and fraud on her and got the will executed. Hence, in all probabilities, the latest Will dated 14.04.1992 u,ill prevail over and the wills executed prior to it. will automaticallv eclipse. With this view only, the Court below decreed the suit against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, which needs no interference. This Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 15

16. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Ctonsequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. To, ,TRUE COPY// ]U/- K SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR /?q SEI]TION OFFICER l.TheVllseniorCivilJudge,CityCivilCourt,Hyderab4{withrecords) z one cc to sRl. A. SUDERSHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to SRl. M. RAJENDER REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to SRl. A. SANJAY KISHORE, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. VIJAY KUMAR HEROOR, Advocate [OPUCI 6. One CC to SRl. T. BALA MOHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUCI 7. Two CD CoPies kuli t'Sl- V^d ; 4, t!,v \ I HIGH COURT DATED:2AD2t2025 +DECRE[] JUDGMENT CCCA.No.4S of 2OO1 DIS,!TISSINC THE AI,PI ,4I WITHOT-IT COSTS qcat@ h{' STATF \-\e q f, o ,) 1 JuN 2s6 1 9 Li n . //_. : ;'i? I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR or r"JJ*lBlfrE oF TELANGANA r H u R s DA Y ir#E#fi H liyr?r"? F F E B R uA R Y PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CITY cIVIL COURT A PPEALNO :45 0F 2001 Between 1 2 RX i i -'A'r?',?l'?:,Y:l!;'i.:: ti5:;#,' ), wo Arch u ta Redd y H o u s e ho,d iI:rrfrrfr'iltro}rl%r|"'''n*u,-" Reddv Househotd Rlo 3-4-627/2,

3. B Krrshna Kumari D/o. Smt. R. lndira Devi . a nro Javaprivl"alngrows. Macha Botarum. nralr?ljat o P Slglqntaka D/o Smt R tNdira Devi, aoed { No zoe p C ii Enirrr" ajrri, Nrgli 6;fi""flrrJ;,i,i occ lrousewire. Frar 5. S. Amika Reddv D/r nro rrai rvor i 6t ",j t j#, lu glIl.?i;*#E:l Appellants 3 to 5 br S],J;fj:, ff ;;,XB:;:** ?,":?ff q".'6ff ,.d:,:fi:t",iff itirf$lfi{,ff,fifl iliitjj#,.#3,F. years, occ: Housewife ^ AND ,, f.tTmE:[STfl:5iBL#f'^ Venkat Reddv, Business R/o H No 3- ' *',iyi*:,""1ffi,Yi"-:,Iflft:if:llU;1,ffi!:,g[:t bv her G p A Ho,der ' f,:fl:ffi:;j"j,* s/o R. Ramesh Reddy R/o Khanapur (v), Bijinapaily (M), t t yi'il:^?,?:li,1]f,il1lfxgiil;i'" rate V Ramuru service R/o H No 3-4- I:*;:f;1,413?S3*i'.'Gopichand Business R,o H No 3-4-62713, ... Defendants / RESPONDENTS - 7 Appeal Under Section 96 of CpC against the Judgment & Decree dated g_12_ -" ' 12e or'rge3 on the rire ort"G vll sJnro, cirir Lrg", bity cirii;i.t, i?:!i:#.: ORDER : This appeal t.onring on fbr hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the 'ludgment and Decree ol' rh.. Lower courr and th.- n',ut".iui papers in the suit and. upon hearing thc argunrsnts ol Sri A. Sudarshan Rctrd1,. Leamed Senior c'ounser on behalf of Sri M' Rajender Reddy. Advocare for the Appcrants and Sri Bala Mohan Reddy, Advocate lbr Respodnent No' r lntr S'i Vija-v Kunrar lJeroor. Adlocate fbr Respon,e't No. 2 and Sri A. Sanjay Kishore, ,\Jr.rrcate lor Respondelt No.3 -r'. This Court doth Ordr:r and Decree as lbllows : l. That thc Appeal be and hercby is rlismissed and 2. "that there shall bc no ordcr as to costs in this Appcal. /flRU6coFl lt , SD/- K SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR tqLk- SEcIfqtJ oPPIC6P- 'tir

1. The Vll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Two C.D.Copies Kul/PSL Yr HIGH COURT OATEO:2010212028 DECREE CCCA.No.45 of 20(r1 DISMISSIN(; TIII: 4PPEAL WITHOUT COSTS cqRq[ h Ktr