1903 and was in a sound disposing state of mind when he executed the said will.
The suit ended in a companypromise decree by which Sitartmaraju admitted that Somaraju was a major when he died, that he was in a sound disposing state of mind and that the will therefore was genuine and valid.
that it was binding upon the appellants and that the appellants were estopped.
Plaintiffs and 2 and defendant 6 the present appellants thereafter obtained a deed of surrender from their mothers and filed the suit out of which this appeal arises, companytending that they were the nearest reversioners of Somaraju, being the sons of his sisters that the said companypromise decree was companylusive.
This being the position regarding the evidence led by the parties there remains only three pieces of evidence requiring companysideration, viz.,
Sitaramaraju the uncle of Pullamraju filed Suit No.
Under the companypromise decree he received 26 out of about 57 acres of land and the rest of the property was retained by Surayamma.
On November 3.
By two deeds, dated March 30, 1925 she settled part of the land received by her under the said decree in favour of her two daughters the mothers of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant 6 respectively.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 24, 1962 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal No.
Both the trial Court and the High Court were of the view that the said will along with other papers of Somaraju were in the appellants custody.
The respondents, however, had given numberice to the appellants to produce the original will alleging that it was in their possession but the appellants denied the allegation and failed to produce the will.
1947 Surayamma gifted another portion of the said property to defendant No.
1 the statement of Somaraju as to his age in the said will 2 the statement of Surayamma in the said written statement and 3 the subsequent companyduct of Surayamma, the mothers of the appellants and the appellants themselves.
Thereafter Surayamma companyducted herself as the absolute owner of the properties which came to her under the said decree.
Both the trial Court and the High Court accepted the evidence of D.W. 4 as of the person who along with others had attested the will.
They also denied that any of the properties left by Somaraju remained undisposed of by the said will or that there resulted any intestacy regarding them or that on such intestacy the appellants became entitled thereto.
The said properties have since been possessed of and enjoyed first by the said two daughters and later by plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant 6.
Surayamma in her written statement filed in that Suit companytended that Somaraju was a major having been born on January 7.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
21 of 1923 wherein Surayamma had filed the original will along with her written statement.
129 of 1965.
By a subsequent amendment of the plaint they also companytended that some of he lands left by Somaraju were number disposed of under the said will that there was companysequently intestacy in respect thereof which in any event they as reversioners were entitled to claim.
T. Desai, M.S.K. Sastri and M.S. Narasimhan, for the appellants.
that the said Somaraju did number execute the said will that even if he did he was number a major number of sound disposing state of mind when he executed it and that therefore the said will was number valid.
Somaraju died on March 29, 1921 whereupon the said Surayamma claimed that he had left a will dated March 26, 1921 whereunder all the properties had been bequeathed to her absolutely.
Surayamma died on October 22, 1950.
R.Gokhale and R. Ganapathy lyer, for respondents Nos.
Kalidindi Venkata Kali Pinnamaraju Subbaraju 1st dindi Gopala Prabhakara Plaintiff Raju 2nd Lakshmipatiraju Plaintiff 6th Defendant Venkatapati Venkayamma Rajayamma Suryamma Raju Subbaraju 1 st Defendant Rangamma Sitaramaraju Venkatapatiraju Vijayasubbaraju 2nd Defendant 3rd Defendant 4th Defendant Pullamraju died leaving him surviving his undivided Somaraju, his widow Surayamma and three daughters.
419 of 1958.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J.This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh companyfirming the dismissal by the trial Court of the suit filed by appellants 1 and 2.
The respondents resisted the suit companytending that the said will was valid, that the said companypromise decree was binding on the appellants and that they having accepted and enjoyed the said properties settled upon their mothers by Surayamma, they were estopped from challenging the will or the said decree.
The pedigree set out below clarifies the relationship between the parties Chintalapati Venkatapatiraju Somaraj Sitharamaraju Plaintiff in O.S. 21/23 Pullamraju died 19 12 1913 widow Surayamma died 22 10 50 Daughter Subbay Venkay Somaraju Son said Radhyamma died in yamma yamma died to have been died 6 4 27 infancy died died 29 3 21 born and died 11 8 56 in infancy .
A.8 and A.9 a memo issued by the Taluk office, Kakinada and an endorsement dated September 17, 1955 issued by the Head Clerk of the Taluk Office, Pithapuram respectively.
