The said will is number true and genuine and valid under law and the said Tirumala Rami Reddy has numberright to bequeath the alleged 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property.
The application was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge by imposing the companyt of Rs.200/ vide his order dated 16.10.2000.
It was submitted that the said plaintiff and defendant No.1 jointly purchased the undivided one half of the plaint schedule property under registered sale deed dated 12.12.1978 for a companysideration of Rs.40,000/ .
Both the revisions have been disposed of by the High Court vide a companymon order dated 13.3.2001.
After the death of his grand father, the plaintiff and his brothers became absolute owners of one third undivided share in the property and along with their fathers one third share they became owners of two third undivided share in the scheduled property.
It was further alleged that they also purchased the remaining one half vide another sale deed dated 10.4.1979 for a further sum of Rs.40,000/ .
Aggrieved by the said order, defendant No.1 filed CRP No.4721 of 2000 in the High Court which was allowed vide the order impugned in the appeal.
As a retaliatory measure the defendant No.1 filed an application being IA No.1288 of 2000 seeking amendment of the written statement for inclusion of the following para PROPOSED AMENDMENT Add para 5 a of the written statement It is submitted that the alleged will dated 20.8.1984 alleged to have been executed by the father of the 1st plaintiff Trimuala Rami Reddy in favour of his grand sons i.e., plaintiffs 2 to 4 is companycocted, fabricated and impersonated document.
The grand father of the appellant Dhondapati Narayana Reddy who had undivided one third share in the said property executed a registered Will dated 20.8.1994 bequeathing his entire estate to the plaintiff appellant.
Aggrieved by the order of the trial companyrt, the defendant appellant filed CRP No.4692 of 2000 in the High Court which was dismissed vide the order impugned in the appeal.
During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed IA No.1283 of 2000 seeking permission for adducing additional evidence to prove testamentary succession by producing the registered Will dated 20.8.1994 executed by Donapati Tirumala Ramareddy.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the companyrt framed an issue to the effect, as to whether the plaintiff was entitled for partition and separate possession.
It is alleged that in his written statement defendant NO.1 did number dispute the existence of will dated 20.8.1994.
Dondapati Narayana Reddy, one of the appellants in the above appeals filed Suit No.214 of 1997 against his brothers and father claiming partition of the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds and separate possession of 2/3rd share of the property.
Leave granted.
SETHI,J. Delay companydoned in SLP C No of 2001 arising out of CC No.5441/2001 .
