D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20-04-1996, in o. S. No. 17 of 1989, passed by the subordinate Judge at Rajampet, Cuddapah district. ( 2 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for declaration of right and title of the plaintiff and the fifth defendant over plaint A and B schedule properties, for delivery of possession thereof after evicting the defendants 1 to 4 and for mesne profits. ( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. ( 4 ) THE suit was originally instituted by one sridharam Venkataramaiah, who died during the pendency of the trial. Hence, the second plaintiff came on record as legatee of the deceased first plaintiff through a Will, dated 17-04-1989, and continued the suit and consequently, the plaint was also amended. Inasmuch as the original plaintiff died, the averments made in the original plaint are of not much significant and since the second plaintiff who stepped into the shoes of the deceased first plaintiff as legatee, the averments made in the amended plaint that are more relevant, in brief, are as under. ( 5 ) THE mother of one Sridharam murthamma was in possession of plaint a-schedule property, which was given by her parents towards pasupu Kunkam ; that she was closely acquainted with the first defendant who was a Medical Practitioner and used to visit his clinic and take treatment from him; that the plaint schedule properties were stridhana properties" of Murthamma and hence she was the absolute owner thereof; that she died on 12-12-1988 leaving the plaint schedule properties; that the deceased first plaintiff and the fifth defendant being the legal heirs are entitled to the plaint schedule properties left by the said murthamma; that the first defendant was interfering with the rights of the deceased first plaintiff unjustly; that the defendants 1 to 4 have no manner of right or interest in the plaint schedule properties; that defendants 2 and 4 who were said to be in possession were refusing to vacate some items of the plaint schedule properties and that the deceased first plaintiff and the fifth defendant alone were entitled to the plaint schedule properties as legal heirs of said Murthamma. ( 6 ) AT the outset, it is to be noted that though it is the case of the deceased first plaintiff that the plaint schedule properties were the properties gifted to one murthamma by her parents by way of pasupu Kunkam , those properties are to be treated as stridhana properties . It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the first plaintiff, who died during the pendency of trial, and the fifth defendant, who are no other than the brother and sister, were entitled to a share under sub-section (1) of section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (for brevity "the Act") inasmuch as the deceased first plaintiff would fall under the category of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Act. ( 7 ) AT this stage itself, it is significant to note that the fifth defendant had filed written statement in support of the contentions of the plaintiffs. But, she did not choose to examine herself in support of the contentions of the plaintiffs or herself. ( 8 ) THE main contention of the first defendant, who is the contesting party, is that one Murthamma got the plaint schedule properties by inheritance and not towards pasupu Kunkam , as contended by the plaintiffs, and bequeathed the plaint schedule properties in his favour by executing a Will, dated 25-10-1988, under ex. B-1. ( 9 ) THE Court below, in the light of the above-mentioned contentions, formulated the issues as under: (1) Whether the 2nd plaintiff is entitled for declaration of her right and possession of the suit properties? (2) To what relief? ( 10 ) THE Court below also framed additional issues as under:additional Issues, dated 25-11-1994: (1) Whether the Will, dt. 17-04-1989, is true, valid and binding on the defendants? (2) To what relief? additional Issue, dated 24-06-1995: whether items 2 and 5 to 33 of plaint A-Schedule are not available? ( 11 ) IN support of his contentions, the second plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 1 and two others as P. Ws. 2 and 3 and got marked Exs. A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the defendants, the first and fourth defendants examined themselves as D. W. 5 and D. W. 1 respectively and three others as D. Ws. 2 to 4 and got marked Exs. B-1 to B-7. 2 and 3 and got marked Exs. A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the defendants, the first and fourth defendants examined themselves as D. W. 5 and D. W. 1 respectively and three others as D. Ws. 2 to 4 and got marked Exs. B-1 to B-7. ( 12 ) THE Court below, after considering the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, decided the additional issue, dated 24-06-1995, in favour of the plaintlffs, issue No. 1 and additional issue, dated 25-11-1994, in favour of the defendants to the effect that the plaintiff must be non-suited and eventually dismissed the suit. ( 13 ) NOW, the points that arise for consideration before this Court are: (1) Whether the plaint schedule properties are the stridhana properties of late Murthamma alleged to have been gifted away by her parents towards pasupu kunkam ? (2) If so, whether it was established by the plaintiffs? (3) Whether the Will, dt. 17-04-1989, under Ex. A-1, was true, valid and if so, what is its effect? (4) Whether the defendants could successfully establish that the plaint schedule properties were inherited by late Murthamma from her parents? (5) Whether the first defendant could successfully establish the execution of Will, dated 25-10-1938, under ex. B-1? ( 14 ) POINTS 1 to 5: It is not in dispute that originally the plaint A-Schedule property belonged to the parents of late Murthamma. After the death of her father and then her mother, the said Murthamma inherited the said property and had been in possession and enjoyment of the same during her life time. ( 15 ) IN this context, it is to be seen that the second plaintiff was examined as P. W. 1. There was no evidence from the side of first plaintiff since he died during the pendency of trial. Except the oral testimony of P. W. 1 that the plaint schedule properties are stridhana properties of late Murthamma, no other evidence was adduced. ( 16 ) P. W. 2 is one of the attestors of Will, dated 17-04-1989, under Ex. A-1. P. W. 3 who scribed Ex. A-1 also attested the same. ( 17 ) FROM the above evidence, adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, it could be seen that at best the second plaintiff could establish that she is the legatee of the deceased first plaintiff. A-1. P. W. 3 who scribed Ex. A-1 also attested the same. ( 17 ) FROM the above evidence, adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, it could be seen that at best the second plaintiff could establish that she is the legatee of the deceased first plaintiff. ( 18 ) IN this regard, it is to be noted that the said Will under Ex. A-1 was allegedly executed on 17-04-1989. The first plaintiff died on 13-10-1989. Further, it is the common case of both the deceased first plaintiff and the second plaintiff that the deceased first plaintiff and the fifth defendant are the legal heirs of late Murthamma. Consequent upon the death of the first plaintiff, the legal heir of the deceased first plaintiff, if any, and the fifth defendant are to be treated as legal heirs of Murthamma subject to proof. When it is discernible from the plaint that the deceased first plaintiff having specifically averred in the plaint that himself and the fifth defendant are the legal heirs of late Murthamma, as to how he could execute a Will in favour of the second plaintiff alone in respect of entire plaint schedule properties to which the fifth defendant was also allegedly having a share. In other words, when it is the specific case of the first plaintiff, who died pending trial, that himself and the fifth defendant were the legal heirs of late Murthamma by virtue of operation of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, he could have bequeathed only his share of plaint schedule properties by way of a Will in favour of second plaintiff. Therefore, even assuming that the execution of Will was established, in view of the above most crucial aspect, such an execution, in my view, was definitely under suspicious circumstances. Further, the case of the second plaintiff is also not very different from the one of the deceased first plaintiff. This theory of execution of will by the deceased first plaintiff amounts to eliminate the fifth defendant totally from the field, which is absolutely contrary to the basic averments of the plaint. Hence, the alleged execution of will under Ex. A-1 cannot be believed inasmuch as the same is shrouded with acute suspicion. This theory of execution of will by the deceased first plaintiff amounts to eliminate the fifth defendant totally from the field, which is absolutely contrary to the basic averments of the plaint. Hence, the alleged execution of will under Ex. A-1 cannot be believed inasmuch as the same is shrouded with acute suspicion. ( 19 ) ON the other hand, in his evidence the first defendant who was examined as d. W. 4 deposed that the properties held by late Murthamma were inherited by her, by succession, from her parents. He further deposed that since he was a Doctor by profession, late Murthamma used to attend his clinic for treatment and used to stay with him. In addition to his evidence, he got examined the scribe and two attestors of ex. B-1 Will. All the three witnesses supported the case of first defendant on the aspect of inheritance of properties by late murthamma from her parents under Ex. B-1 will. The cumulative effect of the evidence of these three witnesses is to the effect that late murthamma used to live along with her parents after the death of her husband. Her father pre-deceased her mother and the entire plaint schedule properties were in enjoyment of her mother and after the death of her mother, she inherited the said properties. These facts were categorically spoken to by all the witnesses before the court below. ( 20 ) FURTHER, Ex. B-6 is the certified copy of statement, dated 19-01-1976, recorded by the Additional Revenue Officer, Land revenue, Rajampet, from late Murthamma. From a perusal of the said statement, it could be seen that late Murthamma had categorically stated before the competent authority that she acquired the plaint schedule properties shown in the land ceiling declaration from her father, meaning thereby that she got those properties only as a legal heir from her parents. Ex. B-7 is the certified copy of order of Land Reforms Tribunal at badvel in C. C. No. 181/75, relating to the lands of late Murthamma. ( 21 ) A combined reading of these two public documents, which are part of the record of Court below, relating to the year 1976, cannot be disbelieved nor could be rebutted. Ex. B-7 is the certified copy of order of Land Reforms Tribunal at badvel in C. C. No. 181/75, relating to the lands of late Murthamma. ( 21 ) A combined reading of these two public documents, which are part of the record of Court below, relating to the year 1976, cannot be disbelieved nor could be rebutted. ( 22 ) THE oral and documentary evidence, referred to above, if read together, it would only reveal that the plaint schedule properties were inherited by late Murthamma from her parents, as contended by the first defendant. Further, the first defendant could successfully, satisfactorily and beyond all doubts or suspicions prove the execution of will, dated 25-10-1988, under Ex. B-1. I do not find any reason to disbelive the said evidence on behalf of the defendants. In other words, the oral evidence adduced by the first defendant as D. W. 5 was supported by corroborating evidence of D. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 and was further corroborated and substantiated by documentary evidence i. e. , exs. B-6 and B-7. Accordingly, all the points 1 to 5 are held against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. ( 23 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the second plaintiff could not either successfully or satisfactorily prove that the plaint schedule properties are stridhana properties of late Murthamma nor could she successfully prove that she is the legatee of the deceased first plaintiff nor there was any evidence on record to prove that the deceased first plaintiff was the legal heir of late Murthamma in order to attract sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act. In other words, when there was nothing on record in order to prove that the deceased first plaintiff was the legal heir of late murthamma, the effect of executing the will under Ex. A-1, even if true, would not have any effect and loses its relevance totally for the simple reason that the second plaintiff is claiming the plaint schedule properties only as a legatee under Ex. A-1 will said to have been executed by the deceased first plaintiff. A-1, even if true, would not have any effect and loses its relevance totally for the simple reason that the second plaintiff is claiming the plaint schedule properties only as a legatee under Ex. A-1 will said to have been executed by the deceased first plaintiff. ( 24 ) TO put it in a different way, in order to prove that the second plaintiff is the legatee of the deceased first plaintiff and to claim the properties of late Murthamma, she has to necessarily prove the factum of right of the deceased first plaintiff and the fifth defendant as legal heirs of late Murthamma since the plaint schedule properties held by late murthamma were claimed to be stridhana properties . ( 25 ) THE Court below had discussed all the necessary issues and gave cogent and convincing reasons in detail except framing of an issue with regard to the validity of the will, dated 25-10-1988, under Ex. B-1, said to have been executed by late Murthamma in favour of the first defendant. However, the said issue was laid as a point for consideration before this Court and the same had been discussed and answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. ( 26 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the Appeal suit is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. ( 27 ) IN the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.