P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) LPA No. 98 of 2001 is filed against the judgment in a. S. No. 2682 of 1993, which was preferred as against the judgment in OS No. 106 of 1984 rendered by Addl. Subordinate Judge, tenali. Aggrieved by the same judgment, cross-objections were preferred in LPA no. 98 of 2001. LPA No. 131 of 2001 is filed against the judgment in Tr. AS No. 306 of 1995, which was filed as against the judgment in OS No. 1 14 of 1987 on the file of the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Tenali. The first plaintiff in O. S. No. 106 of 1984, who is the first defendant in OS No. l14 of 1987 and the first respondent in LPAs. has filed cross-objections before the learned singe judge in AS No. 2682 of 1993 and also in lpa No. 98 of 2001. raising some objections relating to certain findings given by the court below. Both, the suits where disposed of by a common judgment by the learned addl. Subordinate Judge, Tenali. OS No. 106 of 1984, the suit for partition, was decreed passing a preliminary decree granting one-fourth share to each of the brothers excluding the sisters. OS No. 114 of 1987, the suit for specific performance, was dismissed by the court of first instance. Aggrieved by the said judgment, defendants 1 and 2 in OS no. 106 of 1984 and plaintiffs in OS No. l 14 of 1987 have filed S. No. 2682 and Tr. AS no. 306 of 1995 while the first plaintiff in os No. 106 of 1984 preferred cross- objections in AS No. 2682 of 1993, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge in appeals, present LPAs. , and cross-objections have been preferred. ( 2 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as referred to in OS no. 106 of 1984. The first plaintiff, defendants 3, 4 and 5 are the brothers and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are the sisters and defendant Nos. 7 to 13 are the legal representatives of D3, who died. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 3 to 5 are the children of one Seetaramaiah, who was a practising advocate. The wife of Seetaramaiah predeceased him. The first plaintiff, defendants 3, 4 and 5 are the brothers and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are the sisters and defendant Nos. 7 to 13 are the legal representatives of D3, who died. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 3 to 5 are the children of one Seetaramaiah, who was a practising advocate. The wife of Seetaramaiah predeceased him. The stand of the plaintiffs that the plaint scheduled property is the self- acquired property of their father and that they are entitled to one-seventh share each, was not disputed in the written statement of defendants 2 to 4 and as such no issue was framed in that regard. The third defendant died on 1-10-1990 and defendants 7 to 13 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased third defendant. Thus, it is the case of the plaintiffs that seetaramaiah, their father died intestate and each of the heirs are entitled to one-seventh share and as such they sought for a decree for partition granting one-seventh share to each of the heirs of the deceased seetaramaiah. However, the case of the defendants 1 and 2 is to the effect that seetaramaiah died testate executing a Will dated 20-3-1977 in a sound disposing state of mind bequeathing the entire property in favour of sons excluding the daughters. The will is marked as Ex. A1. Defendants 1 and 2, who are plaintiffs in OS No. 114 of 1987, filed the said suit for specific performance for enforcing the oral agreement of sale. In both the suits common evidence was recorded. PWs. 1 to 7 w ere examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and documents Exsa1 to A9 were marked. On. behalf of the defendants DWs. 1 to 3 were examined and documents B1 to B41 were marked. The documents which have bearing for deciding the matter are Exs. Al to A4 and Ex. A6. ( 3 ) THE learned single Judge while deciding the matter had not gone into the validity of the Will. The learned Judge had not laid much stress on Ex. 1 to 3 were examined and documents B1 to B41 were marked. The documents which have bearing for deciding the matter are Exs. Al to A4 and Ex. A6. ( 3 ) THE learned single Judge while deciding the matter had not gone into the validity of the Will. The learned Judge had not laid much stress on Ex. Al Will on the ground that plaintiffs 2 to 4, who are not legatees under the Will, have entered into agreement with the first plaintiff ( 4 ) SRI G. Dharma Rao, the Counsel representing the appellants mainly contended that the plaint scheduled property is not self acquired property but is a coparcenary property and as such the succession is governed by the provisions under Section 6 but not under Section 8 of the Hindu succession Act and the Will Ex. Al is genuine, valid and binding. The learned counsel for the appellants relying on a judgment of the supreme Court in K. Sri ramulu v. Aswathanarayana, AIR 1968 SC 1028 , contends that when major sharers had agreed for the sale of the property, the relief of specific performance can be granted as against minor sharer also and that the oral agreement is also enforceable. ( 5 ) MR. S. V. Ramachandra Murthy, party-in-person countered the above submissions and stated that Ex. A1 is an unregistered Will and there are several suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. He pointed out that his father seetaramaiah was a practising advocate and only his thumb impression is found on the will and the explanation given is that the hand was shivering. It is contended that the said will had not seen the light of the day till the suit for partition was filed. The late production of the Will is also a suspicious circumstance more so when it is an unregistered Will. He also pointed out that except. PW3, the scribe, none of the attestors have been examined though one of the attesters is alive and no explanation is given as to why he was not examined, that there is discrepancy in the testimony of PWs. He also pointed out that except. PW3, the scribe, none of the attestors have been examined though one of the attesters is alive and no explanation is given as to why he was not examined, that there is discrepancy in the testimony of PWs. 2 and 3 as regards the preparation of the Will as pw3, the scribe stated that a rough Will was prepared before drafting the Will and subsequently it was torn into pieces but pw2 stated that no such rough Will was prepared, and that the date of execution of the Will i. e. , 20-3-1977 was Ugadi day and it was stated by PW2 that Vempati satyanarayana, another advocate who is alleged attestor of the Will, was going to the court at the time of attestation and therefore the version spoken to by PW2 on this aspect appears to be false as there was no necessity for the advocate to go to Court on Ugadi day, which is a declared public holiday. While pointing out several other circumstances, he finally contended that the will is not proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and also in the light of the provisions under Sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaswant v. Amrit Kaur, 1977 (1) SCC 369 and submits that the burden is on the propounder of the Will to explain the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and since the opposite party failed to do so, necessarily it must be held that the Will is not proved, that Seetaramaiah died intestate and that they are entitled to one-seventh share each in the plaint scheduled property. He further contended that the plea that the plaint scheduled property is a self-acquired property of Seetaramaiah was not specifically denied, no issue was framed, no evidence was let in and no argument was advanced before the court below and such contention is raised for the first time in these LPAs. ( 6 ) HEARD both the parties at length. ( 7 ) AS far as Ex. A1 is concerned, it is an unregistered Will alleged to have been executed by Seetaramaiah and except the evidence of PW3, the scribe of the Will, none of the attestors had been examined. ( 6 ) HEARD both the parties at length. ( 7 ) AS far as Ex. A1 is concerned, it is an unregistered Will alleged to have been executed by Seetaramaiah and except the evidence of PW3, the scribe of the Will, none of the attestors had been examined. No doubt, it is in evidence that one of the attestors is no more but other attestor who is alive was not examined and no explanation is forthcoming for non-examination of the other attestor. In view of the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian evidence Act read with Section 63 of the indian Succession Act, it Can be said that the Will Ex. Al had not been proved according to law. That apart, delay in filing of the Will also throws suspicion more so, when it is an unregistered Will. If the Will had been really executed by the decease, seetaramaiah, they would have taken steps to act upon that Will and get their names mutated. Further, it is difficult to believe that the thumb impression was taken on account of shaken hands of the testator because nothing prevented the testator from signing with shaken hands. Therefore, we are not inclined to believe the version of the defendants on this aspect. ( 8 ) NOW coming to the relief of specific performance, Ex. A6 is an unregistered sale deed. There is no written agreement but it is the case of the appellants that there were talks to execute a sale deed and Ex. A6 was a draft. The Court below as well as the learned single Judge recorded a finding that Ex. A6 is not as a result of the agreement made by the first plaintiff. Though PW4, the village karanam was said to have attested Ex. A6, the learned single Judge had expressed doubt about the genuineness of Ex. A6, with which we are in complete agreement, for the reason that the question of attestation does not arise when the document itself was not executed, as it is stated that Ex. A6 is a draft. In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that no case is made out for specific performance. A6, with which we are in complete agreement, for the reason that the question of attestation does not arise when the document itself was not executed, as it is stated that Ex. A6 is a draft. In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that no case is made out for specific performance. ( 9 ) INSOFAR as cross-objections are concerned, in view of disproof of Ex A1, as a necessary corollary it is held that of late seetaramaiah (D3, D4, D5 and plaintiffs 1 to 4) are entitled for partition and separate possession of l/7th share each. Since the third defendant died, his legal representatives who are brought on record are entitled to the extent of share of their father. ( 10 ) THE LPAs. and the cross-objections are disposed of accordingly. No costs.