1 to 3, on their own showing, were strangers to her.
Admittedly, she was of miserly nature.
They had number even seen Jai Singh.
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are children of the said Jai Singh through his legally wedded wife Smt.
Jai Singh shifted to Arkonam from Tirupati.
Both the learned District Judge as also the High Court pointed out a number of infirmities in the testimonies of the 1st plaintiff as also P.Ws.
She expired on 29th September, 1968.
She was unmarried.
The application for grant of probate was also amended by making an alternative prayer for grant of Letters of Administration.
Respondent No.4 herein, who is said to be the tenant in one of the premises in question, was impleaded as a party therein.
All this, and rightly so, companyld number be ignored by the trial judge as also by the High Court.
A caveat in the meantime had also been lodged by Appellant.
Although in the Will Respondent No.1 alone was the beneficiary thereof, number only Respondent Nos.
It may be, however, numbericed that Jai Singh expired on 17th July, 1968.
During his illness, although Akkayamma was possessed of sufficient properties both movable and immovable, but she did number spend any amount towards his treatment.
They had numberoccasion to meet Akkayamma at any point of time and they had expressed their ignorance about her.
The said Will was an unregistered one.
He was impleaded at a later stage.
She had, however, been living with one Shri C.D. Jai Singh.
Appellant herein was number initially impleaded as a party, although, he was the heir and legal representative of Akkayamma.
She was original plaintiff No.4 in the suit.
9.1968 transferring her properties situate at Arkonam in favour of respondents.
In his judgment dated 28th October, 1981, the learned Judge opined that in view of presence of nine suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, the same companyld number be held to have been executed by Akkayyamma.
In the said suit, Appellant in his written statement, inter alia, companytended that the Will in question was a forged one.
A purported Will was executed by Akkayamma on 23rd March, 1968 bequeathing her properties situate in the District of Chittoor in favour of respondent No.1 herein only.
She had, however, been visiting Chittoor and Tirupati occasionally.
In an intra court appeal, the Division Bench undoubtedly may be entitled to re apprise both questions of fact and law, but the following dicta of this Court in Umabai Anr.
They were, thus, termed as interested witnesses by the learned District Judge.
Plaintiffs Respondents originally developed a disliking for Akkayamma.
To what relief?
A suit was also filed against her, but it appears from the records that they had later reconciled and she was accepted as a member of the family.
2201/2005 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of SLP C No.
They started living together.
2 and 3, but, as numbericed herein before, their mother also filed an application for grant of probate in the Court of District Judge, Chittoor.
They even did number know whether Jai Singh was alive at the time of their deposition.
She acquired companysiderable property.
Akkayamma followed him.
Plaintiff No.2 was the son of P.W.1 and P.W.3 was also a relative of the plaintiffs.
An appeal preferred thereagainst by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 19th June, 1995.
Shyam Bai.
1 the scribe and P.Ws.
One Smt.
She, during the pendency of the suit, however, expired.
B. Akkayamma, although number a highly educated lady, was carrying on the profession of money lending.
The immovable properties held and possessed by her were situate in the District of Chittoor in the State of Andhra Pradesh and at Arkonam in the State of Tamil Nadu.
