Telangana High Court
Banduru Seethamma , Ummadi Seetha vs Bandaru Srinivasa Rao on 10 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
APPEAL SUIT No.53 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Challenging the judgment dated 13.12.2007 passed in
O.S.No.17 of 2003 by the learned Principal District Judge,
Khammam District, the present appeal suit is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff,
claiming to be the second wife of Late Bandaru Prasada Rao,
filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction
over the suit schedule properties based on a will dated
23.07.1993, allegedly executed by the deceased. She
contended that after their marriage in the year 1980, she
lived with him until his death in the year 2002, and by
virtue of the will, she became the absolute owner of the
properties. The first defendant, son of the deceased, denied
the marriage and will, asserting that the plaintiff was only a
servant of his father and that the will was fabricated. He
further claimed that the properties were joint family
properties of the deceased and his adoptive father, Late
Kabbaiah, and not the self-acquired properties of Prasada
SKS,J
Rao. The defendants also pointed to earlier legal
proceedings and documents, including a legal heir certificate
and voter list that did not mention the plaintiff as a wife or
legal heir. The plaintiff's prior testimony in a different case
also revealed that she had earlier identified herself as
unmarried and a servant. The defense argued that the will
was neither produced nor mentioned at the time of death of
the Prasada Rao and that its execution and attestation were
not credibly proved in the trial Court.
3. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed
four issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 to 3
were examined and Ex.A1 to A9 are marked. DWs.1 to 4 are
examined and Exs.B1 to B11 were marked on behalf of the
defendants.
4. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, vide
order dated 13.12.2007, dismissed the suit holding that the
will to be suspicious and unproven and held that the
plaintiff failed to establish either her marital relationship
with the deceased or valid execution of the will. The trial
Court further concluded that the properties in question were
SKS,J
joint family properties and not subject to testamentary
disposition. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal suit is
filed.
5. Heard Sri D. Raghavulu, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant as well as Sri C.B.Ram Mohan
Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are contrary
to law, the material evidence on record, and the facts and
circumstances of the case and that the appellant had duly
proved the execution of Ex.A2 - Will deed through cogent
oral and documentary evidence as required under the Indian
Evidence Act, and there was no positive rebuttal evidence
adduced by the defendants to disprove the same. He further
submitted that Exs.A2 to A9 clearly established that the
appellant was the second wife of late Sri Bandaru Prasada
Rao, with whom she got married in the year 1980, and both
oral and documentary evidence on record sufficiently proved
her marital status and the circumstances under which the
SKS,J
Will was executed and that the trial Court erred in
disbelieving the claim of the appellant merely on the basis of
a criminal complaint filed by defendant No.4 after the death
of Prasada Rao, without appreciating that such proceedings
are not binding on the civil Court which alone is competent
to adjudicate the validity of the Will and the title of the
appellant based on it.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
although the trial Court framed specific issues regarding the
relief sought and the validity of the Will, it failed to address
each issue independently and instead disposed of the matter
by clubbing all issues together without properly appreciating
the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the
appellant. He further contended that the trial Court erred in
discarding the Will deed merely because the defendants
disputed the signature of the testator, despite the fact that
there was no substantive evidence to support such denial,
thereby rendering the approach of the court below legally
unsustainable. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside
the order of the trial Court by allowing this appeal suit.
SKS,J
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that although the appellant claims to
be the wife of Prasada Rao, she herself deposed in the
criminal case that she was his servant, which is sufficient to
discredit her claim and that the appellant had filed an
application before the Legal Services Authority after the
death of B. Prasada Rao, alleging that her gold was sold by
him and requesting appropriate action, but she made no
mention of any Will executed in her favour in that
application. This omission, according to the respondent,
indicates that the Will deed is a forged document. Therefore,
there is no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court, and
the trial Court has rightly passed the decree. Hence, he
prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal suit.
9. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal
are:
i. Whether the deceased B. Prasada Rao executed the
Will deed in favour of the appellant?
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that
she is the owner of the suit schedule property?
iii. Whether the judgment of the trial Court warrants any
interference?
SKS,J
Point Nos.i and ii:
10. In light of the submissions made by both learned
counsel and upon a thorough perusal of the material
available on record, it is observed that the appellant
examined herself as P.W.1, and also examined P.Ws.2 and
3, who are stated to be attestors to Ex.A2 - the Will deed.
Their evidence reveals that the contents of the said Will were
explained by the testator, late B. Prasada Rao, at the time of
execution.
11. The primary contention of the appellant is that she is
the second wife of late B. Prasada Rao, and that he executed
Ex.A2 Will deed in her favour. However, no documentary
evidence has been filed by the appellant to substantiate her
claim of being the legally wedded second wife of the
deceased. On the other hand, the documents filed by
defendant No.4 include deposition by the appellant herself
in a criminal case, dated back to 1996, the year of execution
of the alleged Will deed, wherein she stated that she was
working as a servant in the house of late B. Prasada Rao.
This prior statement directly contradicts her present claim
SKS,J
of being his wife and casts serious doubt on the veracity of
her assertion.
12. Furthermore, although the attestors of the Will deed
were examined, the fact that the Will was neither produced
nor mentioned in the application filed by the appellant
before the Legal Services Authority (LSA) shortly after the
death of B. Prasada Rao raises a cloud of suspicion
regarding its genuineness. The promptness with which the
appellant and others approached the LSA, without relying
on or disclosing the existence of the Will, suggests that the
Will may not have been in existence or known at that time.
13. Additionally, the pleadings of B. Prasada Rao in
O.S.No.72 of 1989 reflect that the suit schedule properties
were not his self-acquired properties. If the properties in
question were not self-acquired, the authority of B. Prasada
Rao to execute a Will disposing of such properties is
questionable and undermines the credibility of Ex.A2.
Further doubt is cast by the testimony of the son of D.W.2,
who deposed that the handwriting in Ex.A2 was not that of
SKS,J
B.Prasada Rao, which, if believed, suggests that the
document may be forged.
14. The trial Court appears to have rightly appreciated the
evidence and disbelieved the Will deed relied upon by the
plaintiff. The contradictions in the appellant's own
statements across proceedings, her failure to substantiate
the claim of being the deceased's wife, and the suspicious
circumstances surrounding the execution and production of
the Will, all support the findings of the trial Court.
Point No.iii:
15. In view of the above discussion in point Nos.i and ii,
there is no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court. The
trial Court discussed all the issues and it is a well reasoned
judgment and there are no grounds to interfere in the
judgment.
16. In view thereof, this Appeal Suit is dismissed
confirming the judgment dated 13.12.2007 passed in
SKS,J
O.S.No.17 of 2003 by the learned Principal District Judge,
Khammam District. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 10.06.2025
SAI
SKS,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
P.D. JUDGMENT
IN
Date: 10.06.2025
SAI
