Dismissed

Koneru Purna Prabhavathi v. Nandamuri Gopala Rao

Telangana HC3 Dec 2012SA/406/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal and cross objections concerned the validity of two unregistered Wills executed by the deceased brother. The appellant and respondent, siblings of the deceased, propounded conflicting Wills. The courts below rejected both Wills due to suspicious circumstances, lack of expert support, and active participation of propounders in execution, dismissing the suit and appeals.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal and cross objections dismissed; suit for declaration and injunction dismissed.

Koneru Purna Prabhavathi Vs Nandamuri Gopala Rao — Succession and Inheritance | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

S.A.No.406 of 2011 & Cross Objections (SR) No.36190 of 2012

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Subject matter of this second appeal and cross objections is Wills said to have been executed by late Nandamuri Venkatappayya. The plaintiff/appellant and the defendant/respondent are sister and brother, they being children of brother of the deceased. Each of them propounded one Will in their favour, the plaintiff relying on Ex.A.1 Will dated 25.09.1995 and the defendant relying upon Ex.B.18 Will dated 24.09.1995, copy of which is marked as Ex.B.1. PW.2 is one of the attestors in Ex.A.1 Will. DWs. 2 and 3 are attestors in Ex.B.18 Will. Both the Wills are unregistered. The deceased died on 25.09.1995 while undergoing treatment in a hospital at Vijayawada. Since some time prior to his death, the deceased was suffering from high and uncontrolable diabetes and he was taken from his village to Hanuman Junction to a private hospital and from there to another hospital at Eluru and from there to another hospital at Vijayawada, where he breathed last. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that Ex.A.1 Will

¶5

is valid, operative and binding to the extent of the property except item No.2 of the plaint schedule property insofar as the plaintiff is concerned and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. Both the Courts below, after trial and considering material on record, rejected both the Wills and dismissed the suit as well as the appeal.

¶6

2. Both the Wills are unregistered Wills. The propounders of the respective Wills took active part in execution of those Wills. The said circumstance itself is suspicious circumstance which throws any amount of doubt on truth of those Wills. Though the plaintiff took steps to send Ex.A.1 for Expert’s examination, since the Expert’s opinion was against the plaintiff, the plaintiff abandoned the same and did not examine either the Expert or exhibit opinion of the Expert. On the other hand, the defendant refused to send Ex.B.18 Will to any Expert for obtaining opinion as to its genuineness. The lower appellate Court considered oral evidence of PW.2 and also DWs 2 and 3 in the right direction and came to correct conclusion against truth of both the Wills. There is no question of law muchless substantial question of law which arises for determination

¶7

either in the second appeal or in the cross objections.

¶8

3. In the result, the second appeal and the cross

¶9

objections are dismissed.

¶10

____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt.3^rd December, 2012

¶11

PNV

Koneru Purna Prabhavathi v. Nandamuri Gopala Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koneru Purna Prabhavathi v. Nandamuri Gopala Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathi Srinivasa Rao, Vs M/s. Rohini Chit Fund, Vijayawada

Yandra Narasimha Murthy, Vs Kavuru Rama Krishna

Kandula Gangamma Vs Dugigam Srinivasa Rao

Bojjala Raja Reddy (died) Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

S.Srinivasulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pabbati YESUDAS.(DIED)AND3 Others. Vs Pabbati Sudarshanam.