ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THESE two Second Appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree, dated 7-8-2000, passed by the learned iii Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in A. S. No. 58 of 1998 and A. S. No. 126 of 1999, reversing the common judgment and decree, dated 27-3-1998, passed by the learned senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, in O. S. No. 3 of 1993 which was filed for partition of 1/4th share of the suit property for plaintiff and the same was dismissed, and O. S. 34 of 1994 which was filed by the 2nd defendant on behalf of the 5th defendant/minor (in O. S. No. 3 of 1993) for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, which was decreed. ( 2 ) IT is a dispute, between son on one hand and father, who died during the pendency of the suit. Plaintiff, 2nd and 3rd defendants are the sons of 1 st defendant, 4th defendant is the wife of 1 st defendant, and 5th defendant is the son of 2nd defendant and grandson of 1 st defendant. 2nd defendant, on behalf of his minor son 5th defendant in O. S. 3 of 1993, as plaintiff filed O. S. No. 34 of 1994. ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the suit 1st defendant died and the 4th defendant being the wife and 5th defendant being grandson were impleaded as legal representatives as per orders in I. A. No. 283 of 1994. ( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as the Court below refers them. ( 5 ) THE brief facts of the Plaintiff s case are that the suit schedule property is a joint family property, which was purchased by the 1st defendant and his brothers, and the 1st defendant has got the suit schedule property to his share during the partition between himself and his brothers. By virtue of a settlement before the elders, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule land paying the rents to the 1 st defendant. Therefore, he is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. By virtue of a settlement before the elders, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule land paying the rents to the 1 st defendant. Therefore, he is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, it is the case of the defendants in O. S. 3 of 1993 that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of 1st defendant and during the life time of 1st defendant, he has executed a will bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of 5th defendant who is the son of 2nd defendant. D. Ws. 2 and 3 are scribe and attestor of the will. Therefore, the 5th defendant, by virtue of a registered will has become absolute owner of the suit schedule property after the death of 1st defendant. Therefore, he is entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. ( 7 ) TO prove the case of the respective parties, they examined P. W. 1 and D. Ws. 1 to 3 and documentary evidence marked as exs. A-1 to A-19and Exs. B-1 to B-15. ( 8 ) BASING on the respective pleadings of both the parties, the learned Senior Civil judge, Srikalahasti, has framed the following issues and additional issue: (1) Whether the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of the 1 st defendant? (2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to claim a share in the schedule property in view of his prior conduct as stated in the written statement? (3) To what relief? additional issue No. 1: whether the 5th defendant is absolute owner of the schedule property by virtue of the will dt. 20-5-1992 executed by his grandfather-1st defendant herein? ( 9 ) ON consideration of both the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit property is not a joint family property. Therefore, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 3 of 1993 is not entitled for partition of 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and as such, the lower Court dismissed the said suit. Therefore, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 3 of 1993 is not entitled for partition of 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and as such, the lower Court dismissed the said suit. By virtue of WILL, dated 20-5-1992, executed by 1st defendant in favour of 5th defendant, he became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property; therefore, he is entitled for declaration of title over the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession, and as such, the suit o. S. No. 34 of 1994 was decreed. ( 10 ) AGGRIEVED by the above common judgment and decree, the appeals were preferred before the III Additional District judge, Tirupati and the Additional District judge, on reappraisal of the common judgment and decree, after going through the pleadings, re-appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties in deciding the validity of the will noticed that the original will was not filed in the Court to verify the signature of the 1st defendant who was executant of the will. Further noticed that the explanation offered by D-2 that the plaintiff has stolen the original will and to that effect, a police complaint was given, therefore, the certified copy of the registered will was filed before the Court and to prove the contents of the will, D. Ws. 2 and 3, scribe and attestor were examined. But the learned Judge noticed that the copy of the will is not produced to verify the signature of 1st defendant, moreover, the 1st defendant executed the will in the year 1992 and he filed R. C. C. No. 1 of 1993 before the Rent controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, srikalahasti, for recovery of arrears of rent payable by the plaintiff and no whisper is made in R. C. C. during his lifetime. Therefore, disbelieving the execution of the will, more so, believing Exs. A-17 and A-18 which were documents to the settlement arrived at between the parties before the elders, which was held immediately after the death of 1st defendant, which were signed by P. W. 1, 3rd and 4th defendants, authorizing the elders to settle the dispute and the Rent Control Case was dismissed. Further observed that the another brother 3rd defendant, mother 4th defendant were not examined to support the version of 2nd defendant as D. W. 1 with regard to the execution of the will by his father in favour of his son. Further observed that the another brother 3rd defendant, mother 4th defendant were not examined to support the version of 2nd defendant as D. W. 1 with regard to the execution of the will by his father in favour of his son. ( 11 ) ONE more reason was given by the appellate Court that the defendant No. 1 having sons, wife and daughters, therefore, the execution of the Will, bequeathing the property in favour of his grandson 5th defendant is un-believable. The execution of will is suspicious one. Moreover, considering the evidence of D. W. 2 it has to be seen that d. W. 2 has deposed that he cannot give the age of the 1st defendant on the date of execution of the will and that he does not know the father s name of the 1 st defendant. D. W. 2 further deposed that the original will was shown to him and that he did not verify about the particulars of the original will. Taking into consideration the legal position relied on the issue the learned Additional district Judge, held that the defendants have failed to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounded in executing the will and therefore, the point No. 1 was answered accordingly and the issue No. 3 in o. S. No. 3 of 1994 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and issue No. 1 in O. S. 34 of 1994 was decided against the plaintiff therein and in favour of the defendant. ( 12 ) WITH regard to issue in question that whether the suit schedule property is the joint family property and whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit property. The lower appellate judge, considering the contentions of D. W. 1 that the suit schedule property is self acquired property of the 1st defendant and Ex. A-1 is the certified copy of the partition deed executed by the 1st defendant and his brothers and after disposal of the above said share of the 1 st defendant, that he purchased the suit schedule property, and therefore, having held that it is a joint family property by considering the partition entered between the 1st defendant and his brothers dated 6-4-1970. ( 13 ) FURTHER, as per the evidence of P. W. 1 and admissions made by D. W. 1 that 1st defendant and his brothers acquired some properties, that there was partition between them, and in that partition, 1st defendant got a tiled house and that subsequently he has sold that house and purchased the suit schedule property, shows that the suit schedule property is joint family property. After considering the legal position on the issue, more so, not examining 3rd and 4th defendants i. e. , brother and mother of D-2, in whose name the suit schedule property was purchased, after explaining the contention of d. W. 1 that D. W. 1 has admitted that the suit property is the self acquired property of 1st defendant under Ex. B-1, considering that p. W. 1 has taken stand from the very beginning that the suit schedule property is the joint family property acquired with the nucleus of the joint family property, Ex. B-1 is outcome of settlement made by the parties on the advice of the elders. D. W. 1 himself admitted that his father conveyed panchayat before the village elders and they made settlement, in that settlement elders directed the 1 st defendant to give the house on rent to P. W. 1 for Rs. 600/ -. Therefore, Ex. B-1 is an outcome of deliberations. In the second page of Ex. B-1, it is mentioned that the suit schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the 1st defendant and therefore, it cannot be said that the 1st defendant has made categorical admission that it is self-acquired property of the 1st defendant. In view of the settlement arrived in O. S. No. 91 of 1990, which was got dismissed on 28-8-1991, which was filed by 1st defendant against P. W. 1, which was settled outside the Court and R. C. C. No. 1 of 1993 was also dismissed. Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are parties to the Exs. A-17 and A-18 before the panchayat held, immediately after the death of 1st defendant, but unfortunately, 2nd defendant has not examined D-3 and d-4, and wherein it was categorically stated that all the properties including the properties standing in the name of the 1st defendant are joint family properties and are in joint possession. A-17 and A-18 before the panchayat held, immediately after the death of 1st defendant, but unfortunately, 2nd defendant has not examined D-3 and d-4, and wherein it was categorically stated that all the properties including the properties standing in the name of the 1st defendant are joint family properties and are in joint possession. There are disputes with regard to the said properties and that they will abide by the decision of elders, which supports the version of P. W. 1; therefore, held that it is a joint family property and the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share being Class-I heir, along with the defendants 2 to 4. Accordingly, the O. S. No. 3 of 1993 was decreed and the suit O. S. No. 34 of 1994 was dismissed. ( 14 ) AFTER going through the material placed on record, I am satisfied that the lower appellate Court has extensively gone into the matter and he is right in holding that the defendant in O. S. No. 34 of 1994 and plaintiff in O. S. No. 3 of 1993 proved that the will executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 5th defendant is suspicious, when class-I heirs are very much available i. e. , sons, wife, daughters of 1st defendant and also in the absence of the filing original of ex. B-3 by 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant has failed to offer proper explanation under what circumstances, he could not file original of Ex. B-3 and as to why he has not taken steps contemplated under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, though he has alleged that a complaint was made to the police that P. W. 1 has taken the original of Ex. B-3, he has not taken any steps to complete the investigation to prove that P. W. 1 has taken away original of will, therefore, he has filed secondary evidence as certified copy of the registered will. Moreover, for non-examination of 3rd and 4th defendants i. e. , another brother and mother of 2nd defendant is also supports the case of P. W. 1. It is evident from the record that 1st defendant has purchased the suit schedule property, after selling his share of property got during the partition among his brothers under Ex. A-1. Therefore, it is joint family property and the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. It is evident from the record that 1st defendant has purchased the suit schedule property, after selling his share of property got during the partition among his brothers under Ex. A-1. Therefore, it is joint family property and the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. ( 15 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in these Second Appeals. The lower appellate Court was perfectly justified in allowing the appeals upsetting the common judgment of the trial Court. ( 16 ) IN the result, both the appeals are dismissed and the common judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is confirmed. No order as to costs.