The High Court · 2025

Judgment

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADITA RANI C.C.C.A.No.l52 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant - defendant No.l aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2010 passed in O.S.No.577 of 2006 by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and the resp.ndents 3 to 5 are the defendants 2 to 4

3. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court 4- The respondents plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule "A" property in their favor and to allot .,B,, schedule property in favor of defendant No.l in pursuance ,rf the wilt dated

04.06.1994 cxecuted by their mother late Smt.Gowra Laks,hmamma and to award costs.

5. The suit schcdule "A" property was a house bearing Ntunicipal No.l_3_ 607 admeasuritg 127 square yards situated at Kotha Baz.,.ar, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad and the suit schedule "B" property was a house bearing Municipal No. 1 -3 - 1 00 1 situated at Kotha Bazar, Kav adiguda, Hyderaba 1. I

Dr.GR& J ccca 152 2010 6. The plaintiffs submitted that both the said two houses belonged to their 2 late mother Smt.Gowra Laxmi alias Gowra Lakshmamma, the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant No.l. Their mother Smt.Gowra Laxmi died on

22.03.1998 leaving behind the plaintilfs - her two daughters and the defendant No.l - her son. They submitted that their mother executed a Will dated

04.06.1994 registered as document No.78/1994 in the Ofhce of the Sub- Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad on 06.06.1994. She bequeathed the "B" schcdule property to defendant No.l and bequeathed the "A" schedule property to her two daughters (the plaintiffs herein) equally. As pcr the Will of Smt.Gowra Laxmi, the plaintiffs were entitled to claim title and for separate possession of the "A" schedule house. On the death of their mother, the defendant No.1 took hold of all the documents of title of both the houses and the link documents and started collecting rents from the tenants pertaining to "A" schedule property while he continued to occupy the "B" schedule property, which was in his possession. They further submitted that the defendant No.l by his nature was a turbulent and violent person. He used to ill treat their mother during her lifetime. On account of his behavior, the plaintiffs did not dare to open the subject matter of the Will before the defendant No.l immediately after the death of their mother, except orally informing him about the Will during the 1Oft day ceremony and again during the I't year annual ceremony of their mother. They feared that the defendant 3 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 No.1 would go to any extent to attack them, if they dared to pursue the topic. Their husbands also discouraged them to ask for the propertl,on the score that they had small children and it was not desirable to strain the relationship with their brother. In that vierv, the plaintiffs did not persuade tf,e defendant No. 1 to partition the property, as per the Will of their mothe r. However, the children of the plaintiffs had grown up, mariages of some rtf them were also performed and their financial condition had weakened and they needed to possess the property bequcathed to them by their mother The husband of plaintiff No.2 was not having any income and eamings. -lhe plaintiff No.1 was having three daughters and one son. She had performe,l the marriages of two daughters. One of the daughters of the l" plaintiff rvas suffering with cancer. Due to which, thc plaintiff No.1 had to spent heavil'g on her. She was financially crippled and was in debts. Undcr the said circumstances, they issued a legal noticc datcd 14.05.2005 to the defendant lrlo.l through their advocate for partition of "A" schedule properfy. But the defendant No.l through his reply dated 28.05.2005 refuted the claim of the plaintiffs and denied the Will dated 04.06.1994, as such filed the suit.

7. The plaintiffs had shown the tenants in the "A" schedule property as defendants 2 to 4 4 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010

8. The defcndant No.1 filed written statement. He admitted the relationship between him and the ptaintiffs and that their mother Gowra Laxmi died on22.03.1998. But, however, he denied that his mother was the owner of the A & B schedule properties and contended that he paid the entire sale considcration and put the name of his mother nominally in the sale deed dated l6.05.l972pertaining to "A" schedule property. He contended thathis late mother was a house wife and she was not having any source of money. He further contended that a part of "A" schedule property was sold in 19'79 through registered sale deed for performing the marriage of plaintiff No.2. He contended that the thumb impression on the alleged Will did not belong to his mother and the alleged Will was created, fabricated, concocted and brought into existence for the purpose of blackmailing him and to extract money from him under threat. He further submitted that he was in occupation of the above said two houses prior to the death of their mother itself. He denied that he was a violent and turbulent person and that he used to ill treat his mother. He contended that he helped the plaintiffs in performing the marriages of their daughters. He also spent huge amount for the cancer treatment ofone of the daughters ofthe plaintiffs. He contended that the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs at the instigation of the persons who were enimical to him. He stated that after the l0th day death ceremony of their mother, he had given six tulas of gold and cash of Rs.15,000/- to each of the plaintiffs as per their .i|..' 5 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 demand. He further contendcd that the marriages of both the plaintiffs were perfonned prior to the arnendment in chapter II-A to the l{indu Succession Act inserted by AP Act 13 of 1986 with retrospective effecr from 05.09.19g5. He further contended that during the lifetime of his mother, she never stated about executing any will. one of thc attestors to the alleged will was none other than the youngcr brother of the husband of plaintiff No.2 and the second witness was an advocate, who was the junior counsel in the Office of Sri N.Raghavan, advocatc, who was allcgcd to have drafted thc Wi[. He denied that the defendants 2 to 4 were occupying the ..A,, scht:dule property as alleged by the plaintiffs. He contended that they were sh,wn as parties on imaginary grounds, as such, process was not paid and the suit rvas dismissed against them.

9. Basing on the said pleadings, the triat court frarrred the issues as follows:- l) Whether late Gowra Lakshmamma, the mother of the parties rvas the absolute owner of suit properties, as claimed? 2) whether defendant No. I has paid entire consideration for the purchase of suit schedule properties and got sale deed in the name of his mother nominally as alleged? 3) whether Gowra Lakshmamma died intestate by executing the will dated 04.06.1994? I 6 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 4) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled for partition of suit properties? 5) Whether the court fee paid is correct? 6) To what relief?

10. The plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.l. . Exs.Al to AI0 were marked through her. TheAdvocate Sri N.Raghavan, who drafted the Will was examined as PW.2. An Advocate by name Sri T.Santosh Kumar, one of the attestors of the Will was examined as PW.3. A Senior Assistant in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad was examined as PW.4 Exs.Xl to X4 were marked through him. The defendant No.1 was examined as DW. 1 . Exs.B I to 87 were marked on his behalf.

11. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court passed a preliminary decrce for partition of plaint "A" schedule properry in favor ofthe two plaintiffs equally and allotted plaint "B" schedule property to defendant No. I and directed both the parties to bear their own costs

12. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant No.l preferred this appeal.

13. Heard Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, leamed counsel for the appellant and Smt.A.Anasuya, leamed counsel for the respondent No.2. Though, a vakalat was filed by Sri K.Goverdhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.l, 7 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 the learned counsel failed to submit his arguments on behalf of respondent No.1.

14. Leamed counsel for the appellant contended that the suit properties were not liable for partition, as the marriages of thc respondents 1 and 2 - plaintiffs were performed in the years 1968 and 1978 respectively. The father of the parties executed a gift deed dated 04.12.1971 in fai,or of Smt.Gowra Lakshmamma (mother of the parties) and also in favor of the appellant, who was a minor at that time, which would show his intention to allot the 'B' schedule property in f-avor of the minor. While mortgaging the 'A' schedule property also, the appellant also joined along with his motl'.er and executed a memorandum of equitable mortgage in favor of one Sri (i.Ramachandraiah and another, which would clearly show that the appellant ,vas exercising his right of ownership over both the properties on all aspectri. The trial court erred in allotting "A" schedule properry in favor of the rest,ondents 1 and 2 - ptaintiffs on the basis of the alleged Will, which was mark:d as Ex.A2 dated

04.06.1994, which was not genuine. The trial court fail:d to see that the plaintiffs failed to prove the Will. The trial court failed to s:e that in a suit for partition, the party who was seeking partition should prove the joint family status, but in the present case, the respondents I and.2 h:rd relied upon the alleged Will, as such, on the face of it, the suit itself was not maintainable. The respondents I and 2 - plaintiffs ought to have filed a i;uit for declaration 8 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 and recovery of possession of "A" schedule property, as they were not claiming any interest in "B" schcdule property. On one way claiming joint possession, they paid a nominal court fee seeking the relief of partition. If they were claiming joint possession both in A & B schedule properties, they ought to have claimed one-third share both in A & B schedule properties.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand contended that "A" schedule properfy was purchased by mother ofthe parties through a registered sale deed and the "B" schedule property was gifted by the father of the parties in favor ofmother of the parties, as such both the properties were self-acquired properties of the mother. If mother was the owner and if she died intestate, the plaintiffs were entitled to file a suit for partition. The appellant - defendant No.l was in posscssion of both A & B schedule properties. The appellant - defendant No.1 was in physical possession of"B" schedule properfy and was in constructive possession of "A" schedule property. As the mother of the parties had executed a Will and the defendant No.l disputed the said Will, the respondents I and2 - plaintiffs proved the same by examining PWs.2 to 4. No evidence was adduced by the appellant - defendant No.l with regard to his defence, that he paid the entir'e sale consideration for purchasing A & B schedule properties. There was nothing wrong in hling a partition suit, but however, court fee can be ordered to be paid at any stage of the suit and prayed to dismiss the appeal. Dr.GRR, J ccce 152 2010 16. On considering the contentions of both the leamed counsel, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the suit lor partition filed by the plaintiffs was maintainable? 2) If so, whether thc plaintiffs were entitled for a share in the "A" schedule property as per the Will deed dated 04.06.1994? 3) Whether the Will was proved in accordance with law? 4) To what result?

17. POINT No.l: Whether the suit for partition filed by thr: plaintiffs was maintainable? The contention of the plaintiffs was that both thc A & B schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of their mother lSmt.Gowra Laxmi alias Gowra Lakshmamma. "A" schedule property was J:urchascd by their mother through a rcgistered sale deed dated 16.05.1972 executed by one A.Krishnavenamma in favor of their mother Gowra Laxrni. "B', schedule property was gifted by their father in favor of their mother, as such both the properties were self-acquired properties of their mother and she executed a Will dated 04.06.1994 granting "B" schedule property to d,:fendant No.l and "A" schedule property to both the plaintiffs equally, but the defendant No.l 10 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 was in possession of both the properties and denying their right in rrArr schedule property and was contending that the Will was not genuine, as such filed the suit for partition.

18. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration, as the plaintiffs were claiming share by virtue of a Will deed, but not claiming their right by way of succcssion, as such, they ought to have asked for the declaratory relief and ought to have paid the court fee accordingly, filing a suit for partition by paying a nominal court fee was not propcr

19. Admittedly, the property is a self-acquired property of their mother Gowra Laxmi alias Lakshmamma and that she stated specifically as to how the'A'& 'B'schedule propertics shall be devolved upon her children in Will deed. As the appellant - defendant No.1 was denying the right of the plaintiffs over the "A" schedule property, thc plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession. As the defendant was claiming ownership over the "A" schedule propcrty contrary to the Will, they need to have filed a suit for declaration against defendant No.l and as both the plaintiffs were given a share equally in the "A" schedule property, and as the "A" schedule property is required to be divided equally between the plaintiffs, the suit for partition is also maintainable. As the appellant - defendant No.1 is 11 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 claiming absolute right over both 'A' & 'B' schedule properties, instead of filing a suit for declaration and recovery of possession by both the plaintiffs against defendant No.1 and filing a suit for partition by one plaintiff against the other, a suit for partition is also maintainable seeking to allot shares to the parties in accordance with the Will deed.

20. Accordingly, point No.l is answered hotding that th. suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable.

21. Points 2 and 3: If so, whether the plaintiffs were entitled for a share in the "A" schedule property as per the WiII deed dated 04.06.1994? Whether the Will was proved in accordance with l:rw? As both these points are interconnected and the genuinity of trre will was disputed by the appellant - defendant No.l, the burrlen lies upon the plaintiffs to prove the validity or the genuinity of the will. To dischargc the said burden, the plaintiffs had filed the original will marked as Ex.A2 and got examined PWs.2 to 4 in support of their contention that their mother executed the said Will marked under Ex.A2.

22. Ex.A2 is a registered document, which was registert:d on 04.06.1994, four years prior to the death of the executant Smt.Gc,wra Laxmi alias I 1,2 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 Lakshmamma. As per the death certificate marked under Ex.A6, Smt.Gowra Laxmi died on 22.03.1998.

23. PW.2 is the advocate, who scribed the Will and PW.3 is the advocate, a junior counsel of PW.2, who acted as one of the attestors of Ex.A2 and PW.4 is an employee in the Ofhce of the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, where the Will was registered.

24. The evidence of PW.2 explains the circumstances under which the Wilt was drafted. PW.2 was 73 years old by the date of his giving evidence in thc year 2009. He stated that the plaintiffs' mother was known to him personally He was residing in Jeera Compound, Secunderabad for thc past 73 years and the plaintiffs' mother was residing in a nearby tocaliry catled Kavidiguda, Hydcrabad. In the year 1990, she used to often come to his house complaining about her son that he was illtreating her badly. He advised her to lodge a complaint before the police, but out of fear that the police would arrest her son, she used to defer from taking such action. She always told him that her son was extremely rough in his behavior and tornrring her. He was a turbulent man. But because of motherly love, she used to suffer the pain without making police complaint. In the year 1994, Gowra Laxmi (called as Gowra Lakshmamma) instructed him to draft a Witl of her, and asked him to help her to get it registered. Accordingly, he drafted the Will, as per her 13 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 instructions and got it typed through his typist and sent he: to Sub-Registrar office with his juniol Sri T.Santosh Kumar, Advocate and got it registercd. The Will was executed by her in the Office of the Sut)-Registrar in the prcsence of two witnesses Sri G.Tarang Raj, and his junior Sri T.Santosh Kumar. Hc stated that one more lady also accompanied Sn.t.Gowra Laxmi to his Office as well as to Sub-Registrar Office. He also staterl that he also went to Sub-Registrar Of hce and had seen Gowra Laxmi exe,:uting Ex.A I and identified the said Will. Thc Left Thumb Impression of limt.Gowra Laxmi has been endorsed by him in his writing at all pages and that hc also added at page'6'of the Will on the specific instructions of Gowra Laxmi that "By force he started collecting rents from tenants on my behalf, and I shall take action on him if they do not pay me personally." PW.2 identifiec the endorsements made by him and the Lcft Thumb Impression of Smt.Govrra Laxmi and the attestations of his junior Sri T.Santosh Kumar and Sri G.Tarang Raj.

25. Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to disbclieve his evidence Though he stated that the Will deed do not bear his signahrre as scribe, stated that the draft was in his handwriting. He stated that on the oral instructions of the executant, he had prepared the Will deed. He affirmed that he had been to the Registrar Office for the registration prior to the execution of the document and in his presence only, the document was executed and later registered. T -J.4 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010

26. One of the attestors of the Will deed was examined as pW.3. pW.3 stated that he was a practicing advocate and was attached to the office of sri N.Raghavan. He joined the said Office in the year 1993. At that time one Smt.Gowra Laxmi (also called as Gowra Lakshmamma) used to visit the office of Sri N.Raghavan, advocate, along with another lady, who was her neighbor. Gowra Laxmi used to complain to his senior about her son Raju (the appellant herein) stating that he was torturing her, abusing her and was also beating her, and was collecting the rents by force mislcading the tenants and was not giving to her. In the year 1994, Gowra Laxmi came to the Office and instructed his senior to draft the will of her to bequeath one house to her son and the other house, in which there were tenants to be bequeathed to her daughters. Accordingly, his senior drafted the Will and asked him to go along with Gowra Laxmi to the Office of Sub-Registrar and to assist her to get the Will registered. The Will was ryped in their Office and executed by Gowra Laxmi in the office of the Sub-Registrar by affixing her Left Thumb lmpression in his presence and in the presence of Sri G.Tarang Raj. He further stated that his senior Sri.N.Raghavan, advocate also visited the office of Sub-Registrar at the request of Gowra Laxmi and attested the Left Thumb Impression of Gowra Laxmi in all pages and at corrections and at additions. PW.3 identified his signature as well as the Left Thumb Impression of Gowra Laxmi and the attestation of Sri G.Tarang Raj as first witness. Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 27 . In his cross-examination, he stated that the Left Thumb Impressions 15 were affixed on Ex.A2 at the Sub-Registrar Office but not at the Otfice of Sri N.Raghavan. He stated that he knew the conversalion between Sri N.Raghavan and the party, as the same was made in his pr.esence. He stated that as per his information, the second attesting witness ,tf Ex.A2 was the brother of the husband of plaintiff No.2 - G.Indramma. He stated that the old lady who came along with Gowra Laxmi was not taken as an attesting witness due to her old age on the advice of their senior Sri N.Raghavan and therefore he acted as attesting witness. He stated that Sri N.Raghavan scribed the words "LTI of Gowra Laxrni" at the thumb impressions in Ex.A2

28. As per the summons issued by the Court to the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, on tho directions of thc Sub-Registrar, a Senior Assistant from the said office produced the rcgisters and the same were markcd as Exs.Xl to X4. Ex.Xl is the thumb impression register in original volume No.50 for the period from 18.03.1994 to 07.06.1994, Ex.XZ is the rele,,,ant entry at page No.l17 in respect of docurnent No.78/94, Ex.X3 is the original document copying Register volume No.20l3 and Ex.X4 is the relevant entry in respect of document No.78/94 at page Nos.85 to 88.

29. PW.4 stated the procedure of registering the Wills in their office. He stated that the executant would come to the Registrar ofiice personally and I 76 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 I execute the document in the presence of the Sub-Registrar and also affix thumb impression in the Thumb Impression Register personally. The original document will be copied down verbatim in Ex.X3 and accordingly Ex.X4 was the verbatim copy recorded of the original of Ex.A2 registered Will. He admittcd the signatures of the Sub-Registrar in Ex.A2 and the other endorsements related to execution made on behalf of the Office. He stated thc procedure adopted for registration that the contents of the documents to be executcd would be read over to thc executant and on admitting the correctness only, the documents would be registered. He fuither submitted that in the case of registration of Wills, the Registering Authority would also verily the condition of thc health of the executant also.

30. Thc contention of defendant No.l was that during the lifetime of his mother, she never stated about executing any Will. If the Will was true, he would have signed as one of the witnesses and the plaintiffs remained silent for a period of 7 to 8 years after the demise of his mother, even though, they were having knowledge about the alleged Will.

31. Considering the conduct and behavior of defendant No. 1, as explained by the plaintiffs in the plaint as well as in the evidence of PW.l, and the conduct of defendant No.l described by the executant- mother in the Will deed- Ex.A2 itself, which was also stated by PW.2 - advocate, the counsel t 17 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 who drafted the said Will deed, the contention of the defenlant for excluding him as an attestor and the delay in filing the suit, is also weil explained by the plaintiffs and the same cannot be considered as a fact disarlvantageous to the plaintiffs.

32. PWs.2 to 4 arc no way related to plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 . PWs.2 and 3 are advocates by profession. PW.2 was a senior adr ocate, rvho drafted the Will on the instructions of his client and PW.3 acted as one of the attesting witnesses and statcd that the executant attestcd her thurnb impression on Ex.A2 Will deed in his presence in the Officc of the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hydcrabad, which satisfics the lcgal requirumcnts lor proving the Will as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1572. PW.4 was an official witness, who stated about the procedure for registcring the documents particularly with regard to the execution of the Will and produced the relevant registers, wherein thc thumb imprcssion of the executant was obtained

33. The defendant No.l though denicd that it was not thc thumb impression of their mother, did not get the documents referred ,o any expert for comparison of the thurnb impresssion of the executanr with that of her admitted thumb impressions, if any available. Thougn, the appellant - defendant No. I contended that it was he who paid the entir. sale consideration for purchase of "A" schedule property and put it in the nlme of his mother, I 18 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 Ex.A I , the certified copy of the sale deed dated I 6.05. 1972 would not disclose anything about the sale consideration provided by the appellant - defendant No.1. It would only disclose that the "A" schedule property was sold by one A.Krishnavenamma, Wo.A.Narsimloo in favor of Smt.Gowra Lakshmamma Wo.Gowra Balaiah (late), rcsident of Kavadiguda, Hyderabad for a consideration of Rs.5,0001.

34. Though the age of the Lakshmamma could not be known from the said document, but the same would reveal that her husband Gowra Balaiah died by the date ol execution of the sale deed itself, as it was shown that the sale deed was executed in favor of Gowra Laxmi, Wo.Gowra Balaiah (late). The appellant - defendant No.l himself filed a document marked under Ex.84, a memorandum of equitable mortgage executed by him and his mother Gowra Laxmi in favor of one Ganj i Ramachandraiah and Ganji Ramulanuna on

02.04.1978 creating an equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds of "A" schedule property, as thcy borrowed a sum ofRs.10,000/- for the purpose of performing the marriage of plaintiff No.2 Indira Devi. Along with the said document, a promissory note marked as Ex.B5 and a receipt was also filed. The receipt behind the promissory note marked as Ex.B5 would disclose the age of Gowra Lakshmamma, widow of Balaiah as 45 years and Gowra Raju, S/o.Balaiah (appellant - defendant No.l) as 22 years by the date of the said document on 14.02.1978 !' 79 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010

35. Thus, as seen from the said document, the defendant l.Io.l was aged 16 years and was a minor by the date of execution of Ex.Al on 16.05.1972. Thus, the defendant No.1 was not having capaciry to carn by the said date and it cannot be presumcd that he had provided the sare (ionsideration for purchasing "A" schedure property and got it executed in the name of his mother. The will marked undcr Ex.A2 would also disclose ,.hat the executant was in a sound state of mind and executed the said docume,t out of her own free will and pleasure. pw.4 atso stated that the Registering Authority would usually veriff the hcalth condition of thc cxecutant at the tirne of registration of will' No evidence was adduced by defendant No.l ,o show that the executant was not in a sound state of health or mind by the date of executing Ex.A2. 36' The executant arso stated in thc will, the circumstances which compelled her to execute the said document. She statcd that she was having two daughters i.e. the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant No. t - her son. Her daughters were aged 40 and 34 years respectively by that datt: and her son was aged 38 years' She stated that she was having two housc rrroperties, which were A & B properties and her son Gowra Raju (appe[ant - defendant No.l) was ill-treating her. She stated that he was not giving propt:r food to her, he abuses her frequently, beats her. Having no altemative as she had no other sons and her daughters were already married, on whom she could not depend, I 20 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 she was suffering in his hands. Inspite of it, her daughters were very often helping her and they had lot of affection towards her. She stated that she along with her son resided at house bearing No.1-3-1001, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad ("B" schedule properry) and in the other house bearing No.1-3- 607, Kavadiguda ("A" schedule property) there were four tenants and as soon as the tenants were paying rents to her, hcr son pounces on her like a lulture and would seize away thc rents from her hands. Though, she was a Blood Pressure patient and required atleast Rs.300/- per month for treatment, her son would deprive her of the same also and if asked him for money, he would beat her. Recently he beat her on her hand badly. Her daughter-in-law would pretend as if she was not well and very often would instigate her son with complaints that she was not helping her in the kitchen, whereupon her son would beat her and say that she was a useless woman. She further stated that her son was often telling her that she was no more the owner of the two houses, as he had the documents in his hands. She stated that she never executed any document conveying rights over the above properties to her son. But when she told him that she had not conveyed him the houses and how he was claiming, he said that he could do things without her or her presence. As she was an uneducated lady and as her son, who was a drunkard and was capable of fabricating documents by impersonation and forgery and as she did not know if her son was merely threatening her stating that he got the houses Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 conveyed in his name or in the name of his wife or if he has really done so by fabrication and forgery, she stated that she had not conveye,l her rights in the said two houses to her son or to any other person and that she continued to be the owner of the two houses and never exccuted any doc,rnent in anybody's favor in respect of the said two houses. She never went to any Registrar office at any time. Thus, after her demise, if her son or any other person would claim that the two houses belonged to them, the sairl claim should be treated as nuli and void and if any document was producecl, the same should be considered as fabricated / forged. She stated that her son had taken away all the documents of the two houses from her by forcc She stated that through the said Will, she bequeathed the house bearing No. 1_3_1001, in which she along with her son was residing, shail alone devrlrve upon her son Gowra Raju. she stated that although her son was extremely bad, abuses her, it was her wish being his mother, that on her demise, rrre rrouse bearing No. l-3-1001, Kotha Bazar, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad shall ,levorve upon her son Gowra Raju. In so far as the other house bearing No. I _3_607 (',A,, schedule property) was concemed, she bequeathed the same in equar shares to her two daughters, Smt.K.Mangamma, Wo.K.Sambamurthy and Smt.G. Indramma, wo.G. chandrakant and after her demise, thc said house sharl devolve upon her two daughters. Though the said will was typed, it was arso written in hand that by force, her son started collecting renrs from tenants on F I I 22 Dr.GR& J ccca 152 2010 her behalf and that she would take action on them, if they did not pay the rents personally. She also placed a restriction in thc Will on her son that he being a drunkard, as there is a possibility of his disposing of the house and squandering the money, he could not convey the house in any manner to any person during his lifetime than to enjoy the same with his family.

37. Thus, the executant had taken all precautions in executing the Will and in dividing the property rationally betwecn hcr children as per her wish. She stated the circumstances, under which she was compelled to execute the Will, the conduct and behavior of her son towards her. But, however, being a mother, bequeathed the "B" schedule property in which they were residing, to him and also had taken a precaution that the same could not be sold during his life time except to enjoy it. She had bequeathed the "A" schedule property equally to her two married daughters. The evidence of PWs.2 to 4 would prove that the Will was executed in a sound state of mind by the executant and she bequeathed the properties to her children on her own free will. PWs.2 to 4 had no ill-will or enmity against appellant - defendant No.1 or any bias towards the plaintiffs. As such, it can be considered that Ex.A2 Will was a genuine document executed by the executant in a sound state of mind. The Will was proved by the plaintiffs in accordance with law by examining PWs.2 to 4 and as per the Will both the plaintiffs are entitled to an equal share in the 23 Dr.GRR, J ccca 152 2010 "A" schedule property and the defendant No. I is entitled to be allotted the ..B,, schedule property.

38. As such, points 2 and 3 are answered accordingly in favor of respondents 1 and 2 - plaintiffs as against the appellant - del :ndant No.l

39. Point No.4: To what result? In the rcsult, the appeal is dismissed confirming tlre judgrnent dated

09.06.2010 passed in o.S.No.577 of 2006 by the lcamcd v Senior civil Judgc, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No ordcr as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII Sd/- K FREE RAMA MURTHY. \DEPUTY REGISTRAd ..l SECTION OFFTCER To, 1 2 3 kul 14, The V Se nior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (,lruith records ) TO sMT A. ANASUYA, ADVOCATE (OPUC) ONE CC One CC to Sri KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRt T. BHEEM REDDy Advocate [OpUCl 4 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT Dr. GRRJ DATED: 0210512025 JUDGMENT CCCA.No.152 of 2010 STATI: o, i;l c! L J\- Cto ,l DISMISSIGN THE CCCA WII'HOUT COSTS 4-Lop<eN h.v"5 ,!lo' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 152 .oF 2010 Between: Gowra Raju, S/o Late Gowra Balaiah Occ: Private Service R/o H.No.1-3-l00'1, Kotha Bazar, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad AND ...APPELLANT/ Defendant No.1

1. Kattam Mangamma, Wo K.Sambamurthy Occ: House Wife R/o H.No.18-7- 607 lBl8, Huppuguda, Hyderabad. 2 G. lndramma w/o Chandrakounsh, R/o Flat No. 305, H. No. 1-5-307130712 Sri Sar Towers, Palla Basthi Gandhinagar, Kavadiguda Hyderabad .. .. Respondents/ Plaintiffs

3. Venkatesh, S/o Nataratnam Private Service R/o H.No.'1-3-607, Kotha Bazar Kavadiguda, Hyderabad 4 Maruthi Rao, S/o Not known Occ: Private Service Rio H.No.1-3-607, Kotha Bazar Kavadiguda, Hyderabad

5. Harish, Sio Not known to Plaintiff ,aged 38 yerars, Occ: Car Driver R/o Portion of H.No.1-3-607, Kotha Bazar Kavadiguda, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/ Defendants 2 to 5 Appeal Under Order 41 Rule 1 R/w. Sec. 96 of CPC aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 577 of 2006 dated 09-06-20'10 on the file of the Court of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed in the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellant and SMT. A. ANASUYA, Advocate for the Respondent. 2 and Sri K. Goverdhan Reddy, Advocate for the respondent being not present . :..F ,l+ } 7 This Court doth order and decree as follows: '1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K, SREE.RAMA MURTHY, D UTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER L To

1. The V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. Two C. D.Copies {^( HIGH COURT Dr. GRRJ DATED:02/05/2025 DECREE CGCA.No.152 of 2010 DISMISS I6NXrTllE ('C'CA WITIIOLJT COSl'S L\rcdA Yk--n ^. :6,b\&'