Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Srirama Mastan Rao vs Bejawada Mastanamma on 21 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE NO: S.A.No.184 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.N Date ORDER OFFICE
o. NOTE
21.04.2022 BSB, J
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
The suit is filed for partition. The first
defendant opposed the suit claiming that the
suit schedule property was purchased by his
father with the income of the first defendant
who was working in Indian Army by then and
that later his father executed a will in his favour
and examined one of the attestors as DW.2.
Basing on the evidence, one statement of
suggestion recorded as admission, both Courts
disbelieved the case of the first defendant and
decreed the suit ignoring the clear statements
of the same witness supporting the will under
Ex.B.1 in many statements. Therefore, the
appellant before this Court/1st defendant raised
the following main substantial questions of law,
besides others, more particularly the way in
which the evidence of D.W.2 was appreciated by
both Courts.
a) Whether the courts below are justified in
discarding the evidence the witness (DW.2) with
regard to the proof of execution of Ex.B.1 WILL
solely on the alleged statement of DW.2 , which
is in the middle of suggestions, that at about six
months back the Defendant No.1 approached
him and taken his signature on Ex.B.1, despite
his specific evidence with regard to the
execution, date, place, time and the presence of
persons at the time of execution of Ex.B.1
including his signing the same?
b) Whether the courts below are justified in
disbelieving Ex.B.1 WILL, with the finding that
the said document was produced during
evidence, despite the specific pleading about its
existence in the written statement filed by
defendant No.1?
c) Whether the evidence of DW.2 who is one of
the witness to Ex.B.1, who stated about the
place, time and date of execution of Ex.B.1 would
be sufficient to establish its execution?
In view thereof, it is a fit case to admit
the appeal.
ADMIT.
Notice to respondents.
Post on 21.06.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellant is
permitted to take out personal service of notice
to the respondents through RPAD and file proof
thereof.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
This petition is filed to grant stay of all
further proceedings pursuant to the decree and
judgment dated 21.08.2019 in O.S.No.103 of
2013 on the file of the court of Junior Civil
Judge, Repalle.
Notice to respondents.
Post on 21.06.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is
permitted to take out personal service of notice
to the respondents through RPAD and file proof
thereof.
In view of the facts and circumstances and
questions of law discussed above, interim order
of suspension of the impugned judgment and
decree dated 21.08.2019 in O.S.No.103 of 2013
on the file of the court of Junior Civil Judge,
Repalle, confirmed by the judgment and decree
dated 24.01.2022 in A.S.No.22 of 2019 on the
file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge,
Repalle is granted, till then.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
PNV
