3. After considering the material evidence on record, the trial Court found that the settlement deeds-Exs.A.6 and A.7 are true and they are only settlement deeds and not the Wills, as claimed by the defendants 1 and 2. It was further held that the Wills relied on by the defendants cannot have any affect and consequently decreed the suit. When the matter was carried in appeal by the defendants 1 and 2, in A.S.No.42 of 2002, the V Additional District Judge, Eluru, the appellate Court while confirming all the findings with regard to the documents, has interfered with the shares with regard to the part of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property which is the land in survey no.768/4. The appellate Court took note of the fact that the total extent of the land in survey no.768/4 is Ac.0.78 cents but the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff and the first defendant relates to only Ac.0.39 cents. The remaining Ac.0.39 cents of land in survey no.768/4 i.e., item no.1 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule is liable for partition among defendants 1 and 2, by virtue of the Will-Ex.B.4 executed by Rajaiah in favour of defendants 1 and 2.
