JUDGMENT : S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J. This appeal by the defendant No.2(b) in FDP No.161/2014 (O.S.No.1527/1988) is directed against the impugned order dated 04.11.2023 whereby the Final Decree Court declared that defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar was legatee under the WILL dated 29.11.2014 alleged to be executed by defendant No.2(a)-Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal in his favour. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the original plaintiffs who are respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein instituted a suit in O.S.No.1527/1988 against Mr.B.R.Shivaprakash the original defendant No.2 and others for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. The suit schedule properties comprised of four items of immovable properties described as Schedule 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' to the plaint. By judgment and decree dated 01.07.2014, the Trial Court declared that the plaintiff and legal representatives of defendant Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to partition and separate possession of their 1/7 th share in the suit schedule properties including property sold in favour of T.V.Raju Mudaliar by defendant No.2. The said preliminary decree had attained finality and became conclusive and binding upon the parties. 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.1527/1988, the respondent Nos.1 to 7/plaintiffs instituted the instant Final Decree Proceedings in FDP No.161/2014. In the said Final Decree Proceedings, the original defendant No.2 Sri.B.K.Shivaprakash's wife, Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal was arrayed as the defendant No.2(a) while their children were arrayed as defendant Nos.2(b), 2(c) and 2(d). During the pendency of the Final Decree Proceedings, the aforesaid defendant No.2(d) Mr.S.Sai Kumar propounded an alleged WILL dated 29.11.2014 inter alia contending that Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal had bequeathed her undivided share in the suit schedule property in his favour and as such, the preliminary decree deserves to be modified and the Final Decree is to be drawn up in terms of the modified preliminary decree by taking into account the alleged WILL said to have been executed by Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal in favour of defendant No.2(d) as contended by him. The legality, validity and correctness of the aforesaid alleged WILL was denied and disputed by the remaining parties, as a result of which the Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: "(1) Whether the respondent No.2(d) has made out grounds to allow the application filed under Section 151 of C.P.C.? (2) Whether the respondent No.2(d) has proved the Will executed by respondent No.2(a) namely Dhanakoti in his favour? (3) Whether the respondent No.2(d) is entitled for the share of respondent No.2(a)? (4) What order?" After permitting all parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court answered all the points formulated above in favour of defendant No.2(d) i.e., Mr.S.Sai Kumar by upholding the WILL propounded by him and consequently passed the impugned order as hereunder: " ORDER The respondent No.2(d) is entitled to 2/21 st share in 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties and 2/3 rd share in 'D' schedule property. Similarly, the respondent No.2(b) is entitled to 1/21 st share in 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties and 1/3 rd share in 'D' schedule property. Accordingly the office is directed to draw preliminary decree in terms of the above order." 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order upholding the alleged WILL dated 29.11.2014, defendant No.2(b)-Mr.S. Ravi Kumar is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.2(d) who is arrayed as respondent No.14 in the present appeal, has filed a Memo inter alia stating that respondent No.14 (defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar) does not claim the benefit under the registered WILL dated 29.11.2014 alleged to have been executed by his mother Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal and that her share may be allotted equally between the appellant and defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar . The said Memo reads as under: "The Respondent No.14 does not claim the benefit under the Registered will dated 29-11-2014 executed by his mother Smt. Dhanakoti. In the circumstances it is prayed that the share of Smt. Dhanakoti may be allotted equally between the Appellant and this respondent." Respondent No.14 filed one more Memo to the effect that defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari died as a spinster/unmarried leaving behind defendant No.2(b)- Mr.S.Ravi Kumar and defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar as her only heirs and legal representatives. In the circumstances it is prayed that the share of Smt. Dhanakoti may be allotted equally between the Appellant and this respondent." Respondent No.14 filed one more Memo to the effect that defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari died as a spinster/unmarried leaving behind defendant No.2(b)- Mr.S.Ravi Kumar and defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar as her only heirs and legal representatives. The said Memo reads as under: "The Respondent No.14 is hereby producing the death certificate of Smt. Shanthakumari who expired as spinster on 17-12-2014 and her name is shown as Respondent No.13 in this appeal." The aforesaid facts and circumstances and the memos filed on behalf of defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar (respondent No.14) will indicate that he has given up his claim over the undivided share of his mother Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal and as well as his claim under the alleged WILL dated 29.11.2014. It is also relevant to state that it is an undisputed fact that the defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari died as spinster/unmarried leaving behind defendant No.2(b)-Mr.S.Ravikumar and defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar as her only heirs and legal representatives. It follows therefrom that in the absence of any WILL executed by Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal and upon defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari having died intestate, their undivided share would devolve upon defendant No.2(b)- Mr.S.Ravi Kumar and defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar and apart from them, no one else would have any right over the undivided share of Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal and defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the trial Court before whom FDP No.161/2014 is pending, is to be directed to pass a final decree by allotting the undivided share of Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal as well as the undivided share of defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari equally to defendant No.2(b)-Mr.S.Ravi Kumar and defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar by passing final decree accordingly. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER [i] Appeal is hereby allowed. [ii] Impugned order dated 04.11.2023 passed in FDP No.161/2014 passed by XLI Addl. City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. [iii] It is hereby declared that the appellant (defendant No.2(b)-Mr.S.Ravi Kumar) and defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar would be entitled to both the undivided share of Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal as well as the undivided share of defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari in the suit schedule property. City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. [iii] It is hereby declared that the appellant (defendant No.2(b)-Mr.S.Ravi Kumar) and defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar would be entitled to both the undivided share of Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal as well as the undivided share of defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari in the suit schedule property. [iv] The Trial Court is directed to proceed further and conclude the Final Decree Proceedings and draw final decree by allotting the undivided share of Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal and undivided share of defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari in favour of both defendant No.2(b)-Mr.S.Ravi Kumar and defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar, as expeditiously as possible. [v] The Trial Court is directed to conclude the final decree proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.