/ APHC010045592018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT NO: 159 OF 2018 Between: 1. Devabhaktuni, Venugopala Radhakrishna, S/o Late Kutumba Rao, Aged 38 Yrs, Employees, R/0 Pooma Show Room Upstairs, Ganesh Plaza, 0pp. to VI City Bus Stop, Jntu Road Kukatpally, Hyderabad Devbhaktuni Bhaskararao, S/O Late Kutumbrao, Aged 28 Yrs, Hindu Employee, r/o H.No. 4-77, Pedapudi Village, Amarthaluru Post Mandal, Guntur District. Devabhaktuni Rajesh, S/O Late Kutumbarao Employee, R/O H.NO.4-77. Pedapudi Village, Amarthaluru Post Mandal, Guntur District. M.Shanta Kumaril, W/0 Venkat Krishna Rao, 80 Wife, R/O Flat No.302, Sai Lakshmi Residency, Enadu Colony Kukatpalli, Hyderabad KPHB Colony, 2. And 3. 25 years, Hindu And 4. years, Hindu, House ...APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS / / // AND Mora Madhav Reddy, S/o Late Aila Reddy, Aged 75yrs, Retired Employee R/0 H.N0.2-2-6471/A/60, Saibabanagar Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree in O.S. NO.99 of 2014, dated 22-11-2017 on the file of the Court XI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tenali, Guntur District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri P V Mahesh, Advocate for the Appellants and Mrs Sodum Anvesha, Advocate for Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That the decrees and judgment dated 22.11.2017 passed in O.S.No.99 of 2014 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge at Tenali be and is hereby confirmed; 3. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. papers in SD/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, Guntur District 2. Two CD Copies TAC > HIGH COURT DATED:21/08/2025 decree AS NO. 159 OF 2018 i 2 3 SEP 2025 g] ^ Currant section dismissing the appeal APHC010045592018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT NO: 159 OF 2ni« Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C O.S. NO.99 of 2014, dated 22-11-2017 District and Sessions Judge at Tenaii, Guntur District. Between: against the judgment and decree in on the file of the Court XI Additional 1. Devabhaktuni, Venugopala Radhakrishna Aged 38 Yrs, Employees. R/0 Pooma Plaza, 0pp. to VI City Bus Stop, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 2. Devbhaktuni Bhaskararao, S/0 Late Kutumbrao, Employee, r/o H.No. 4-77, Pedapudi Village Mandal, Guntur District. 3. Devabhaktuni Rajesh, S/0 Late Kutumbarao, 25 years, Hindu Employee, R/O H.NO.4-77. Pedapudi Wllage, Amarthaluru Post And Mandal, Guntur District. 4. M.Shanta Kumaril, W/0 Venkat Krishna Wife, R/O Flat No.302 Kukatpalli, Hyderabad S/o Late Kutumba Rao, Show Room Upstairs, Ganesh Jntu Road, KPHB Colony, Aged 28 Yrs, Hindu, Amarthaluru Post And Rao, 80 years, Hindu, House Sai Lakshmi Residency, Enadu Colony. ...APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS AND Mora Madhav Reddy, S/o Late Aila Reddy, Aged 75yrs, Retired Employee, R/0 H.NO.2-2-6471/A/60, Saibabanagar Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in EP.No. 9/2018 filed for the execution of the judgment and decree in OS.No. 99/2014 dt. 22.11.2014 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, Guntur. Counsel for the Appellants : SRI P V MAHESH Counsel for the Respondent: MRS SODUM ANVESHA The Court made the following JUDGMENT : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT No. 159 of 2018 JUDGMENT: This regular appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.99 of 2014 dated 22.11.2017 on the file of the Court of learned XI Additional District Judge at Tenali. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4, before the Trial Court, are the appellants. The respondent herein is the plaintiff. For the sake of eonvenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Trial Court. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the properties listed in the plaint schedule, and for possession of those properties from defendants Nos. 1 to 3, future profits, and costs. Before examining the evidence and the findings of the Trial Court, it is essential to review the claims made by both parties in their respective pleadings. The case of plaintiff in brief in the plaint was as follows: 3. 4. The plaint schedule properties originally belonged 1. to one Devabhaktuni Nagendra Rao (hereinafter referred Nagendra Rao”), a resident of Pedapudi, to as / 2 Amarthaluru Mandal, who retired as Chief Engineer from the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB). Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons of his brother, and Defendant No.4 is his sister. The plaintiff joined APSEB in the year 1964 and 11. served as an Assistant Engineer (Technical) under the supervision of said Nagendra Rao, who was then working as a Divisional Engineer. iii. In the year 1981, Nagendra Rao sustained a spinal injuiy in an aecident. Being a bachelor and without familial support, he received care and assistance from the plaintiff, who, out of respect and humanitarian concern. attended to him during his hospitalization and thereafter. Over time, Nagendra Rao developed affection for the plaintiff and treated him like a son. Nagendra Rao frequently visited the plaintiffs IV. residence and considered him part of his family. By the year 2008, due to his advanced age and physical limitations, Nagendra Rao began residing with the 3 plaintiff, who provided him with food, shelter, and medical care. The plaintiff also accompanied him to hospitals, including multiple admissions to CARE Hospital. During this period, none of Nagendra Rao’s relatives extended any support or assistance. On 05.04.2012, Nagendra Rao, being of sound and disposing state of mind, executed a Will bequeathing the plaint schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff. The Will was duly attested by one B.Ranga Reddy and S.Sambi Reddy, both of whom were closely acquainted with Nagendra Rao. The original Will was handed over to V. the plaintiff. In 2013, as Nagendra Rao’s health further deteriorated, and on the advice of Dr. Srinivasarao (who regularly attended him at the plaintiffs residence), the plaintiff admitted him to MSR Old Age Home and Home Care Service at D.D. Colony, Bangambarpet, located the plaintiffs house. Subsequently, in August 2013, he was shifted to Elders Welfare Association, Rampalli VI. near 4 Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District- institution established by employees of the Electricity Department, to which Nagendra Rao had previously donated funds. Nagendra Rao passed away there on 10.09.2013 due to age-related ailments. The plaintiff performed the funeral rites at Kachiguda Burial Ground. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 attended the funeral only upon great persuasion and left immediately after the ■an ceremonies. Nagendra Rao had fixed deposits in the State Bank Vll. of Hyderabad, Adarsh Nagar Branch, Hyderabad, with the plaintiff named as nominee. After his death, the plaintiff collected the said amounts. In accordance with the Will, the plaintiff took possession of the plaint schedule properties and realized the crop for the agricultural year 2013-14. 16.11.2013, the plaintiff submitted an viii. On application to the concerned Tahsildar for issuance of a passbook and title dfeed on the strength of the Will dated 5 05.04.2023. As the Defendant No. 2 raised objections, the revenue authorities could not entertain the same. Consequently, the plaintiff filed W.P.No.949 of 2014 before the Hon’ble High Court, which directed the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, having local connections, forcibly took possession of the plaint schedule property and obstructed the plaintiffs cultivation.DefendantNo. 4, IX. the only legal heir of Nagendra Rao, has not disputed the plaintiffs rights. Only Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are contesting the plaintiffs claim. Hence, the suit. The defendant No.l denying the averments in the plaint and contending in the written state, which was adopted by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 by filing memo, as follows: The plaintiff never looked after Nagendra Rao at any point of time and the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 alone looked 5. after the welfare of Nagendra Rao. The defendants only cultivating the lands of Nagendra Rao, paying land are 6 revenue and have been in possession of the house and all other properties belonging to Nagendra Rao. The defendant Nos.l to 3 performed the funeral obsequies of Nagendra Rao. The plaintiff fabricated the said Will and he has no right over the said properties. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs. 6. The defendant No.4 denying the averments made in the plaint and contending in the written state as follows; The alleged Will said to have been executed by Nagendra Rao in favour of plaintiff is a fabricated one. The defendant No.4 is the only class-I legal heir under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and entitled for the properties of Nagendra Rao. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the suit with costs. 7. On these pleadings, the Trial Court settled the following issues for trial: 1.Whether the Will, dt.05.04.2012 purportedly executed by Nagendra RaoHs true, valid, and binding on the defendants? 7 2.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? 3.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recoveiy of possession as prayed? 4.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for future profits as prayed? and 5.To what relief?” At the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.l to 3 were 8. examined while relying on Exs.A. 1 to A. 19 in support of his contentions. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.l to 3 were examined, however, no documentary evidence was adduced. Based on the evidence and materials presented, the Trial 9. Court concluded that the Will dated 05.04.2012, executed by Devabhaktuni Nagendra Rao, is genuine, valid, and binding on the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the properties listed in the plaint schedule, with full rights and title. He is also entitled to recover possession of the said properties from defendants Nos. 1 to 3, along with future mesne profits. Consequently, the suit was decreed with costs. 8 11. Against the said appellants/defendants preferred this appeal. Heard Sri P.V.Mahesh, decree and judgment, the 12. learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Sri P.V. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants, strenuously contends that during the lifetime of Sri Devabhaktuni Nagendra Rao, with the intention to 13. sell an extent of Ac. 1.82 cents from the suit schedule properties to one Narra Bharati, a registered Special Power of Attorney executed in favour of the plaintiff, authorizing him to execute the sale deed. However, the plaintiff failed to execute the said was sale deed on behalf of Nagendra Rao, despite being duly empowered. Learned counsel submits that this conduct on the part of the plaintiff indicates that Nagendra Rao was not in a position to comprehend or manage his affairs effectively at the relevant time, thereby casting doubt on his mental capacity and 9 the validity of the Will allegedly executed in favour of the plaintiff. 14. He further submits that there exist certain suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the alleged Will. He contends that the burden lies upon the plaintiff to dispel these suspicions and establish the genuineness of the Will. It is argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove that Sri Nagendra Rao executed the Will while being in a sound and disposing state of mind. This crucial aspect, according to the learned counsel, was not properly considered by the Trial Court, thereby vitiating its findings. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff failed to examine the advocate-notary who attested the alleged Will, which is a material omission and fatal to the plaintiffs case. The absence of such crucial testimony casts serious doubt on the validity and due execution of the Will. It is also contended that there is no explanation offered by the plaintiff for the exclusion of Defendant No. 4, the sister of Nagendra Rao, from the bequest. The fact that the entire property was bequeathed solely 15. 10 to the plaintiff, to the exclusion of Nagendra Rao’s close blood substantial suspicion regarding the relative, raises circumstances under which Ex.A.2 Will was executed. Thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. Per contra, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, submits that the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the attestors and in whose presence Nagendra Rao executed Ex.A.2 Will of his own free will and while in a sound and disposing state of mind, coupled with Exs.A.3 to A. 15, categorically prove the genuineness of the Will in question. It is further contended that the testimony of P.W.l, together with Ex.A.4, the burial ground report of Nagendra Rao, clearly establishes that the plaintiff paid the cremation charges of Rs.600/- to the Hindu Smasana Vatika Prabadha Samithi. It is argued that the plaintiff alone took care of Nagendra Rao during his lifetime, and out of the love and affection so demonstrated, Nagendra Rao executed Ex.A.2 Will in favour of the plaintiff and also made him the nominee to his bank 16. 17. 11 deposits. The defendants, on the other hand, have utterly failed to rebut the plaintiffs case with any cogent or credible material on record. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Trial Court, upon due consideration of the facts, circumstances, and the entire material on record, rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, there are no valid or sustainable grounds urged to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court, and consequently, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. In support of the above contentions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon certain pronouncements of HonT)le Supreme Court in Surendra Pal v. Dr.Saraswati Arora}, Anil Rishi V. Gurbaksh Singh^ and Leela Rajagopal v. Kamala Menon Cocharan^. The present proceedings involve determination of multiple factual and legal issues of some complexity like establishing title of the property and recovery of possession. Since plaintiff seeks 19. ^ (1974) 2 Supreme Court Cases 600 2 (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 558 ® (2014) 15 Supreme Court Cases 570 12 declaration of title based on a title through a Will and also seeking possession of the property. It is against this backdrop, the following points which arise for determination need consideration now: 1. Whether the findings and reasons recorded by the Trial Court in particular regarding the declaration of title through the Will dated 05.04.2012 said to be executed by Devabhaktuni Nagendra Rao in favour of plaintiff and whether it is true, valid and warrants any interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate power and jurisdiction? and To what relief? 2. 20. POINT NO.l: Before deciding the point, it is keep in mind the settled legal position on this aspect of first appeal by the Apex Court that “sitting as a court of appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first 13 appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. 21. In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Murthy v. C.SaradambaP, it was also held that “it is also necessary to observe that the right to appeal is a creature of statute. The right to file an appeal by an unsuccessful party assailing the judgment of the original court is a valuable right and hence a duty is cast on the appellate court to adjudicate first appeal both on questions of fact and applicable law. Hence, the re-appreciation of evidence in light of the contentions raised by the respective parties and judicial precedent and the law applicable to the cases have to be conscientiously dealt with.” a Since the defendants have raised doubts regarding the plaintiffs claim, it becomes imperative for the plaintiff to seek both a declaration of title and recovery of possession. The legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rqjeev Gupta V. Prashant Garg^ is particularly relevant here. In that 22. “ (2022) 3 see 209 5 (2025 INSC 552) "N 14 case, the Court emphasized that when the plaintiff is not in possession and the title is disputed, the suit must include a prayer for declaration of ownership. The Bench reiterated that in a suit for possession based on title, the plaintiff is legally bound to establish his ownership and seek a declaration affirming his title to the suit property. In this context, the judgment in Addagada Raghavamma and anr vs Addagada Chenchamma and anr^, is also significant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in a title-based suit, once the plaintiff is able to establish a high degree of probability in support of their claim, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. If the defendant fails to discharge this burden, the plaintiffs title is deemed to be proved. This principle was further affirmed in R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P.Temple and another"^ where the Court clarified that the plaintiff is not required to prove title beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, the standard is that of preponderance of probabilities. If the plaintiff, through oral ■5 1964(2)SCR1933 7 Am 2003 SC 4548 15 and documentary evidence, successfully discharges the initial burden, the onus shifts to the defendant to rebut the claim. The dispute centers on the validity of Ex.A. 2 Will and its 23. execution by Sri Devabhaktuni Nagendra Rao in favour of the plaintiff. It is relevant to the observations made by the Apex Court in Surendra Pal case [referred to supra), where in summary as “to establish the validity of a will, the propounder must prove that the testator signed it voluntarily, with full mental capacity, understanding its implications, and in the presence of two attesting witnesses. If suspicious circumstances exist such as, doubtful signatures, unnatural dispositions, or undue influence—the propounder must dispel these with clear evidence to satisfy the court’s conscience. However, if a caveator alleges fraud or coercion, the burden shifts to them to prove it. If the will is otherwise shown to be genuine and freely made, probate must be granted. 24. In the above legal backdrop, the initial burden of proving the Will rests upon the propounder/plaintiff. To prove the same, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.l as well P.Ws.2 and 3 16 who are the attestors of the said Will. The evidence reveals the following... P.W.l, who had a longstanding association with Nagendra as his subordinate, developed on record 25. Rao a close and caring relationship with him over time. On 05.04.2012, out of love and affection, Nagendra Rao executed Ex.A.2 Will in favor of P.W.l, sound and disposing state of mind, witnessed by P.Ws,2 and 3 and notarized by an advocate. As Nagendra Rao’s health declined. in a P.W.l provided food, shelter, and medical care, including multiple admissions to CARE Hospital. On medical advice, he was admitted to MSR Old Age Home near P.W.l’s residence, and in August 2013, shifted to Elders Welfare Association at Rampalli Village for better care. Nagendra Rao passed away on 10.09.2013 due to age-related ailments. P.W.l performed the funeral rites at Kachiguda Burial Ground, confirmed by Exs.A.3 and A.4, which also show he paid the cremation charges and was listed as the informant, further affirming his close, responsible role and substantiating the genuineness of the Will. as 17 26. To support his case, the plaintiff examined P.Ws.2 and 3, the attesting witnesses of Ex.A.2 Will. P.W.2 stated that he knew Nagendra Rao through a relative and, on 05.04.2012, brought Notary A. Tirupathi Reddy at Nagendra Rao’s request. Nagendra Rao had the Will typed by a clerk in the Notary’s office, reviewed it, and signed it in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who also signed as witnesses. P.W.2 confirmed that the Will executed voluntarily and in a sound and disposing state of mind. P.W.S’s testimony fully corroborated P.W.2’s account, thereby reinforcing the authenticity and proper execution of the Will. was 27. To challenge the plaintiffs claim, the defendant conducted detailed cross-examinations of P.Ws.l to 3. During this P.W.l clearly stated that Nagendra Rao handed over the Will (Ex.A.2) on 05.04.2012 between 2:00 process, p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Although there was a minor discrepancy in the timing between P.W.l and P.W.2, no significant admissions were extracted from P.W. 1 that could cast doubt on the execution of the Will. Both P.W.2 and P.W.3 consistently affirmed during cross-examination 18 that Nagendra Rao executed the Will voluntarily and in a sound and disposing state of mind, thereby reinforcing its authenticity and validity. It is undisputed by the defendants that during his 28. lifetime, Nagendra Rao executed Ex.A.14, a Registered Speeial Power of Attorney dated 07.06.2013, authorizing the plaintiff to sell a land measuring Ac. 1.82 cents in D.No.254/82 to one Narra Bharathi. Additionally, Nagendra Rao had fixed deposits in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Adarsh Nagar Branch, under Ex.A.15, in which the plaintiff is named as the nominee—also not contested by the defendants. Notably, Ex.A.15 lists Nagendra Rao’s address as that of the plaintiff, including the door number, further indieating the close association and trust between them. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs failure to examine the notary advocate before the Trial Court is fatal to his ease. However, during the cross-examination of P.Ws.l to 3, no questions or suggestions were made regarding the notary that would cast doubt on the execution or notarization of Ex.A.2 by 29. 19 Nagendra Rao. Moreover, the defendants have not disputed that the signature on Ex.A.2 is indeed that of Nagendra Rao, the executant, further supporting the validity of the Will. The appellants/defendants further argued that P.W.l admitted during cross-examination to having no personal knowledge of the actual execution of the Will, thereby casting doubt on its validity. However, it is important to note that the 30. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Leela RaJagopaVs case, relying landmark judgments such as H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh— observed that active involvement of on a beneficiary in the execution and registration of a Will may raise suspicion regarding its voluntary nature. 31. In the present case, however, the plaintiff consistently maintained, even during cross-examination, that Nagendra Rao executed Ex.A.2 Will on 05.04.2012 in the presence of attesting witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3, and had it notarized by an advocate. This sequence of events clearly indicates that the Will executed voluntarily by Nagendra Rao, in a sound and disposing was 20 state of mind, and only thereafter handed over to the plaintiff, thereby affirming its genuineness. From the above, the evidence of P.Ws.1-3 and Exs.A.l- A.15 shows that Nagendra Rao, out of affection for the plaintiff who cared for him, voluntarily executed Ex.A.2 Will in a sound disposing state of mind. This discharged the plaintiffs burden, shifting the onus to the defendants to disprove it. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer certain objections made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Rishi [referred to supra), wherein at paragraph No. 19 held follows: 32. 33. case as “19. There is another aspect of the matter which should be borne in mind. A distinction exists between a burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways : (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter evidence; and (hi) an indiscriminate use in 21 which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule is Section 101 is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, whieh would disentitle the plaintiff to the same.” To rebut the plaintiffs case and challenge the validity of the Will, the defendants relied solely on the testimony of D.Ws.l to 3. Their primary contention is that the plaintiff fabricated the Will and that they performed the obsequies of Nagendra Rao, not the plaintiff. 34. During cross-examination, D.W.l admitted that Nagendra Rao lived in the plaintiffs house and named him as nominee. He also confirmed that the plaintiff took Nagendra Rao’s body to CARE Hospital and then to the burial ground. D.W.l had evidence of attending to Nagendra Rao’s medical care, and the defendants presented no material proof to support their elaims. These admissions strengthen the plaintiffs case and highlight his close involvement in Nagendra Rao’s life and final rites. 35. no 22 36. The testimony of D.W.2, who claimed to have known Nagendra Rao, does not support the defendants’ case, as it fails to establish that they provided any assistance to Nagendra Rao during his lifetime or old age. 37. During evidence of D.W.3, who is Nagendra Rao’s sister, admitted that he lived in the plaintiffs house before being moved to the Old Age Home. She was unsiware of who admitted him to CARE Hospital, how often he was treated there, or what documents were filed by the plaintiff. She also confirmed that the plaintiff took Nagendra Rao’s body from the hospital to the burial ground and bore the funeral expenses. These admissions further support the plaintiff’s role in caring for Nagendra Rao. Crucially, the defendants failed to produce any credible evidence or testimony to counter the plaintiff’s claims or disprove the execution of Ex.A.2 Will, thereby failing to rebut the case in any meaningful way. This Court finds no reason to disturb the Trial Court’s finding that Nagendra Rao validly executed Ex.A. 2 Will I 05.04.2012, voluntarily and in a sound state of mind. 38. on 23 Accordingly, the plaintiff is declared absolute owner with right to recover possession from defendants 1 to 3. Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of absolute ownership and is further entitled to recover possession of the properties from defendants Nos.l to 3. 39. POINT N0.2: In view of the findings on point No.l, this Court does not find any valid grounds to interfere with the well-articulated judgment and decrees of the trial Court. Therefore, there are no merits in this appeal and as such the same is liable to be dismissed 40. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the decrees and judgment dated 22.11.2017 passed in O.S.No.99 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned XI Additional District Judge at Tenali. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Any pending miscellaneous petitions are hereby close^ SD/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR /f9r //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, Guntur District (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. P V Mahesh Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Ms. Sodum Anvesha Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies stu TAC HIGH COURT DATED:21/08/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE AS NO. 159 OF 2018 % = 2 3 SF^ 2025 ¥ % Current Seciion ^ £6SPATCV*5^ DISMISSING THE APPEAL