JUDGMENT : (G. RADHA RANI, J.) This appeal is filed by the appellant – defendant No.1 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2010 passed in O.S.No.577 of 2006 by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and the respondents 3 to 5 are the defendants 2 to 4. 3. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court. 4. The respondents – plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule “A” property in their favor and to allot “B” schedule property in favor of defendant No.1 in pursuance of the Will dated 04.06.1994 executed by their mother late Smt.Gowra Lakshmamma and to award costs. 5. The suit schedule “A” property was a house bearing Municipal No.1-3- 607 admeasuring 127 square yards situated at Kotha Bazaar, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad and the suit schedule “B” property was a house bearing Municipal No.1-3-1001 situated at Kotha Bazar, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. 6. The plaintiffs submitted that both the said two houses belonged to their late mother Smt.Gowra Laxmi alias Gowra Lakshmamma, the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Their mother Smt.Gowra Laxmi died on 22.03.1998 leaving behind the plaintiffs - her two daughters and the defendant No.1 – her son. They submitted that their mother executed a Will dated 04.06.1994 registered as document No.78/1994 in the Office of the Sub- Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad on 06.06.1994. She bequeathed the “B” schedule property to defendant No.1 and bequeathed the “A” schedule property to her two daughters (the plaintiffs herein) equally. As per the Will of Smt.Gowra Laxmi, the plaintiffs were entitled to claim title and for separate possession of the “A” schedule house. On the death of their mother, the defendant No.1 took hold of all the documents of title of both the houses and the link documents and started collecting rents from the tenants pertaining to “A” schedule property while he continued to occupy the “B” schedule property, which was in his possession. They further submitted that the defendant No.1 by his nature was a turbulent and violent person. He used to ill treat their mother during her lifetime. They further submitted that the defendant No.1 by his nature was a turbulent and violent person. He used to ill treat their mother during her lifetime. On account of his behavior, the plaintiffs did not dare to open the subject matter of the Will before the defendant No.1 immediately after the death of their mother, except orally informing him about the Will during the 10 th day ceremony and again during the 1 st year annual ceremony of their mother. They feared that the defendant No.1 would go to any extent to attack them, if they dared to pursue the topic. Their husbands also discouraged them to ask for the property on the score that they had small children and it was not desirable to strain the relationship with their brother. In that view, the plaintiffs did not persuade the defendant No.1 to partition the property, as per the Will of their mother. However, the children of the plaintiffs had grown up, marriages of some of them were also performed and their financial condition had weakened and they needed to possess the property bequeathed to them by their mother. The husband of plaintiff No.2 was not having any income and earnings. The plaintiff No.1 was having three daughters and one son. She had performed the marriages of two daughters. One of the daughters of the 1 st plaintiff was suffering with cancer. Due to which, the plaintiff No.1 had to spent heavily on her. She was financially crippled and was in debts. Under the said circumstances, they issued a legal notice dated 14.05.2005 to the defendant No.1 through their advocate for partition of “A” schedule property. But the defendant No.1 through his reply dated 28.05.2005 refuted the claim of the plaintiffs and denied the Will dated 04.06.1994, as such filed the suit. 7. The plaintiffs had shown the tenants in the “A” schedule property as defendants 2 to 4. 8. The defendant No.1 filed written statement. He admitted the relationship between him and the plaintiffs and that their mother Gowra Laxmi died on 22.03.1998. But, however, he denied that his mother was the owner of the A & B schedule properties and contended that he paid the entire sale consideration and put the name of his mother nominally in the sale deed dated 16.05.1972 pertaining to “A” schedule property. But, however, he denied that his mother was the owner of the A & B schedule properties and contended that he paid the entire sale consideration and put the name of his mother nominally in the sale deed dated 16.05.1972 pertaining to “A” schedule property. He contended that his late mother was a house wife and she was not having any source of money. He further contended that a part of “A” schedule property was sold in 1979 through registered sale deed for performing the marriage of plaintiff No.2. He contended that the thumb impression on the alleged Will did not belong to his mother and the alleged Will was created, fabricated, concocted and brought into existence for the purpose of blackmailing him and to extract money from him under threat. He further submitted that he was in occupation of the above said two houses prior to the death of their mother itself. He denied that he was a violent and turbulent person and that he used to ill treat his mother. He contended that he helped the plaintiffs in performing the marriages of their daughters. He also spent huge amount for the cancer treatment of one of the daughters of the plaintiffs. He contended that the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs at the instigation of the persons who were enimical to him. He stated that after the 10 th day death ceremony of their mother, he had given six tulas of gold and cash of Rs.15,000/- to each of the plaintiffs as per their demand. He further contended that the marriages of both the plaintiffs were performed prior to the amendment in Chapter II-A to the Hindu Succession Act inserted by AP Act 13 of 1986 with retrospective effect from 05.09.1985. He further contended that during the lifetime of his mother, she never stated about executing any Will. One of the attestors to the alleged Will was none other than the younger brother of the husband of plaintiff No.2 and the second witness was an advocate, who was the junior counsel in the Office of Sri N.Raghavan, advocate, who was alleged to have drafted the Will. He denied that the defendants 2 to 4 were occupying the “A” schedule property as alleged by the plaintiffs. He denied that the defendants 2 to 4 were occupying the “A” schedule property as alleged by the plaintiffs. He contended that they were shown as parties on imaginary grounds, as such, process was not paid and the suit was dismissed against them. 9. Basing on the said pleadings, the trial court framed the issues as follows:- 1) Whether late Gowra Lakshmamma, the mother of the parties was the absolute owner of suit properties, as claimed? 2) Whether defendant No.1 has paid entire consideration for the purchase of suit schedule properties and got sale deed in the name of his mother nominally as alleged? 3) Whether Gowra Lakshmamma died intestate by executing the Will dated 04.06.1994? 4) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled for partition of suit properties? 5) Whether the court fee paid is correct? 6) To what relief? 10. The plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1. Exs.A1 to A10 were marked through her. TheAdvocate Sri N.Raghavan, who drafted the Will was examined as PW.2. An Advocate by name Sri T.Santosh Kumar, one of the attestors of the Will was examined as PW.3. A Senior Assistant in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad was examined as PW.4. Exs.X1 to X4 were marked through him. The defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1. Exs.B1 to B7 were marked on his behalf. 11. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition of plaint “A” schedule property in favor of the two plaintiffs equally and allotted plaint “B” schedule property to defendant No.1 and directed both the parties to bear their own costs. 12. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant No.1 preferred this appeal. 13. Heard Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.A.Anasuya, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Though, a vakalat was filed by Sri K.Goverdhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, the learned counsel failed to submit his arguments on behalf of respondent No.1. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit properties were not liable for partition, as the marriages of the respondents 1 and 2 – plaintiffs were performed in the years 1968 and 1978 respectively. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit properties were not liable for partition, as the marriages of the respondents 1 and 2 – plaintiffs were performed in the years 1968 and 1978 respectively. The father of the parties executed a gift deed dated 04.12.1971 in favor of Smt.Gowra Lakshmamma (mother of the parties) and also in favor of the appellant, who was a minor at that time, which would show his intention to allot the ‘B’ schedule property in favor of the minor. While mortgaging the ‘A’ schedule property also, the appellant also joined along with his mother and executed a memorandum of equitable mortgage in favor of one Sri G.Ramachandraiah and another, which would clearly show that the appellant was exercising his right of ownership over both the properties on all aspects. The trial court erred in allotting “A” schedule property in favor of the respondents 1 and 2 – plaintiffs on the basis of the alleged Will, which was marked as Ex.A2 dated 04.06.1994, which was not genuine. The trial court failed to see that the plaintiffs failed to prove the Will. The trial court failed to see that in a suit for partition, the party who was seeking partition should prove the joint family status, but in the present case, the respondents 1 and 2 had relied upon the alleged Will, as such, on the face of it, the suit itself was not maintainable. The respondents 1 and 2 – plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of “A” schedule property, as they were not claiming any interest in “B” schedule property. On one way claiming joint possession, they paid a nominal court fee seeking the relief of partition. If they were claiming joint possession both in A & B schedule properties, they ought to have claimed one-third share both in A & B schedule properties. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand contended that “A” schedule property was purchased by mother of the parties through a registered sale deed and the “B” schedule property was gifted by the father of the parties in favor ofmother of the parties, as such both the properties were self-acquired properties of the mother. If mother was the owner and if she died intestate, the plaintiffs were entitled to file a suit for partition. If mother was the owner and if she died intestate, the plaintiffs were entitled to file a suit for partition. The appellant – defendant No.1 was in possession of both A & B schedule properties. The appellant – defendant No.1 was in physical possession of “B” schedule property and was in constructive possession of “A” schedule property. As the mother of the parties had executed a Will and the defendant No.1 disputed the said Will, the respondents 1 and 2 – plaintiffs proved the same by examining PWs.2 to 4. No evidence was adduced by the appellant – defendant No.1 with regard to his defence, that he paid the entire sale consideration for purchasing A & B schedule properties. There was nothing wrong in filing a partition suit, but however, court fee can be ordered to be paid at any stage of the suit and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 16. On considering the contentions of both the learned counsel, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs was maintainable? 2) If so, whether the plaintiffs were entitled for a share in the "A" schedule property as per the Will deed dated 04.06.1994? 3) Whether the Will was proved in accordance with law? 4) To what result? 17. POINT No.1: Whether the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs was maintainable? The contention of the plaintiffs was that both the A & B schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of their mother Smt.Gowra Laxmi alias Gowra Lakshmamma. "A" schedule property was purchased by their mother through a registered sale deed dated 16.05.1972 executed by one A.Krishnavenamma in favor of their mother Gowra Laxmi. "B" schedule property was gifted by their father in favor of their mother, as such both the properties were self-acquired properties of their mother and she executed a Will dated 04.06.1994 granting "B" schedule property to defendant No.1 and "A" schedule property to both the plaintiffs equally, but the defendant No.1 was in possession of both the properties and denying their right in "A" schedule property and was contending that the Will was not genuine, as such filed the suit for partition. 18. 18. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration, as the plaintiffs were claiming share by virtue of a Will deed, but not claiming their right by way of succession, as such, they ought to have asked for the declaratory relief and ought to have paid the court fee accordingly, filing a suit for partition by paying a nominal court fee was not proper. 19. Admittedly, the property is a self-acquired property of their mother Gowra Laxmi alias Lakshmamma and that she stated specifically as to how the ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule properties shall be devolved upon her children in Will deed. As the appellant - defendant No.1 was denying the right of the plaintiffs over the "A" schedule property, the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession. As the defendant was claiming ownership over the "A" schedule property contrary to the Will, they need to have filed a suit for declaration against defendant No.1 and as both the plaintiffs were given a share equally in the "A" schedule property, and as the "A" schedule property is required to be divided equally between the plaintiffs, the suit for partition is also maintainable. As the appellant - defendant No.1 is claiming absolute right over both ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule properties, instead of filing a suit for declaration and recovery of possession by both the plaintiffs against defendant No.1 and filing a suit for partition by one plaintiff against the other, a suit for partition is also maintainable seeking to allot shares to the parties in accordance with the Will deed. 20. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered holding that the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable. 21. Points 2 and 3: If so, whether the plaintiffs were entitled for a share in the "A" schedule property as per the Will deed dated 04.06.1994? Whether the Will was proved in accordance with law? As both these points are interconnected and the genuinity of the Will was disputed by the appellant - defendant No.1, the burden lies upon the plaintiffs to prove the validity or the genuinity of the Will. Whether the Will was proved in accordance with law? As both these points are interconnected and the genuinity of the Will was disputed by the appellant - defendant No.1, the burden lies upon the plaintiffs to prove the validity or the genuinity of the Will. To discharge the said burden, the plaintiffs had filed the original Will marked as Ex.A2 and got examined PWs.2 to 4 in support of their contention that their mother executed the said Will marked under Ex.A2. 22. Ex.A2 is a registered document, which was registered on 04.06.1994, four years prior to the death of the executant Smt.Gowra Laxmi alias Lakshmamma. As per the death certificate marked under Ex.A6, Smt.Gowra Laxmi died on 22.03.1998. 23. PW.2 is the advocate, who scribed the Will and PW.3 is the advocate, a junior counsel of PW.2, who acted as one of the attestors of Ex.A2 and PW.4 is an employee in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, where the Will was registered. 24. The evidence of PW.2 explains the circumstances under which the Will was drafted. PW.2 was 73 years old by the date of his giving evidence in the year 2009. He stated that the plaintiffs' mother was known to him personally. He was residing in Jeera Compound, Secunderabad for the past 73 years and the plaintiffs' mother was residing in a nearby locality called Kavidiguda, Hyderabad. In the year 1990, she used to often come to his house complaining about her son that he was illtreating her badly. He advised her to lodge a complaint before the police, but out of fear that the police would arrest her son, she used to defer from taking such action. She always told him that her son was extremely rough in his behavior and torturing her. He was a turbulent man. But because of motherly love, she used to suffer the pain without making police complaint. In the year 1994, Gowra Laxmi (called as Gowra Lakshmamma) instructed him to draft a Will of her, and asked him to help her to get it registered. Accordingly, he drafted the Will, as per her instructions and got it typed through his typist and sent her to Sub-Registrar office with his junior Sri T.Santosh Kumar, Advocate and got it registered. Accordingly, he drafted the Will, as per her instructions and got it typed through his typist and sent her to Sub-Registrar office with his junior Sri T.Santosh Kumar, Advocate and got it registered. The Will was executed by her in the Office of the Sub-Registrar in the presence of two witnesses Sri G.Tarang Raj, and his junior Sri T.Santosh Kumar. He stated that one more lady also accompanied Smt.Gowra Laxmi to his Office as well as to Sub-Registrar Office. He also stated that he also went to Sub-Registrar Office and had seen Gowra Laxmi executing Ex.A1 and identified the said Will. The Left Thumb Impression of Smt.Gowra Laxmi has been endorsed by him in his writing at all pages and that he also added at page 6' of the Will on the specific instructions of Gowra Laxmi that "By force he started collecting rents from tenants on my behalf, and I shall take action on him if they do not pay me personally." PW.2 identified the endorsements made by him and the Left Thumb Impression of Smt.Gowra Laxmi and the attestations of his junior Sri T.Santosh Kumar and Sri G.Tarang Raj. 25. Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. Though he stated that the Will deed do not bear his signature as scribe, stated that the draft was in his handwriting. He stated that on the oral instructions of the executant, he had prepared the Will deed. He affirmed that he had been to the Registrar Office for the registration prior to the execution of the document and in his presence only, the document was executed and later registered. 26. One of the attestors of the Will deed was examined as PW.3. PW.3 stated that he was a practicing advocate and was attached to the Office of Sri N.Raghavan. He joined the said Office in the year 1993. At that time one Smt.Gowra Laxmi (also called as Gowra Lakshmamma) used to visit the office of Sri N.Raghavan, advocate, along with another lady, who was her neighbor. Gowra Laxmi used to complain to his senior about her son Raju (the appellant herein) stating that he was torturing her, abusing her and was also beating her, and was collecting the rents by force misleading the tenants and was not giving to her. Gowra Laxmi used to complain to his senior about her son Raju (the appellant herein) stating that he was torturing her, abusing her and was also beating her, and was collecting the rents by force misleading the tenants and was not giving to her. In the year 1994, Gowra Laxmi came to the Office and instructed his senior to draft the Will of her to bequeath one house to her son and the other house, in which there were tenants to be bequeathed to her daughters. Accordingly, his senior drafted the Will and asked him to go along with Gowra Laxmi to the Office of Sub-Registrar and to assist her to get the Will registered. The Will was typed in their Office and executed by Gowra Laxmi in the office of the Sub-Registrar by affixing her Left Thumb Impression in his presence and in the presence of Sri G.Tarang Raj. He further stated that his senior Sri.N.Raghavan, advocate also visited the office of Sub-Registrar at the request of Gowra Laxmi and attested the Left Thumb Impression of Gowra Laxmi in all pages and at corrections and at additions. PW.3 identified his signature as well as the Left Thumb Impression of Gowra Laxmi and the attestation of Sri G.Tarang Raj as first witness. 27. In his cross-examination, he stated that the Left Thumb Impressions were affixed on Ex.A2 at the Sub-Registrar Office but not at the Office of Sri N.Raghavan. He stated that he knew the conversation between Sri N.Raghavan and the party, as the same was made in his presence. He stated that as per his information, the second attesting witness of Ex.A2 was the brother of the husband of plaintiff No.2 - G.Indramma. He stated that the old lady who came along with Gowra Laxmi was not taken as an attesting witness due to her old age on the advice of their senior Sri N.Raghavan and therefore he acted as attesting witness. He stated that Sri N.Raghavan scribed the words "LTI of Gowra Laxmi" at the thumb impressions in Ex.A2. 28. As per the summons issued by the Court to the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, on the directions of the Sub-Registrar, a Senior Assistant from the said office produced the registers and the same were marked as Exs.X1 to X4. He stated that Sri N.Raghavan scribed the words "LTI of Gowra Laxmi" at the thumb impressions in Ex.A2. 28. As per the summons issued by the Court to the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, on the directions of the Sub-Registrar, a Senior Assistant from the said office produced the registers and the same were marked as Exs.X1 to X4. Ex.X1 is the thumb impression register in original volume No.50 for the period from 18.03.1994 to 07.06.1994, Ex.X2 is the relevant entry at Page No.117 in respect of document No.78/94, Ex.X3 is the original document copying Register volume No.20/3 and Ex.X4 is the relevant entry in respect of document No.78/94 at page Nos.85 to 88. 29. PW.4 stated the procedure of registering the Wills in their office. He stated that the executant would come to the Registrar Office personally and execute the document in the presence of the Sub-Registrar and also affix thumb impression in the Thumb Impression Register personally. The original document will be copied down verbatim in Ex.X3 and accordingly Ex.X4 was the verbatim copy recorded of the original of Ex.A2 registered Will. He admitted the signatures of the Sub-Registrar in Ex.A2 and the other endorsements related to execution made on behalf of the Office. He stated the procedure adopted for registration that the contents of the documents to be executed would be read over to the executant and on admitting the correctness only, the documents would be registered. He further submitted that in the case of registration of Wills, the Registering Authority would also verify the condition of the health of the executant also. 30. The contention of defendant No.1 was that during the lifetime of his mother, she never stated about executing any Will. If the Will was true, he would have signed as one of the witnesses and the plaintiffs remained silent for a period of 7 to 8 years after the demise of his mother, even though, they were having knowledge about the alleged Will. 31. If the Will was true, he would have signed as one of the witnesses and the plaintiffs remained silent for a period of 7 to 8 years after the demise of his mother, even though, they were having knowledge about the alleged Will. 31. Considering the conduct and behavior of defendant No.1, as explained by the plaintiffs in the plaint as well as in the evidence of PW.1, and the conduct of defendant No.1 described by the executant- mother in the Will deed- Ex.A2 itself, which was also stated by PW.2 - advocate, the counsel who drafted the said Will deed, the contention of the defendant for excluding him as an attestor and the delay in filing the suit, is also well explained by the plaintiffs and the same cannot be considered as a fact disadvantageous to the plaintiffs. 32. PWs.2 to 4 are no way related to plaintiffs and defendant No.1. PWs.2 and 3 are advocates by profession. PW.2 was a senior advocate, who drafted the Will on the instructions of his client and PW.3 acted as one of the attesting witnesses and stated that the executant attested her thumb impression on Ex.A2 Will deed in his presence in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, which satisfies the legal requirements for proving the Will as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . PW.4 was an official witness, who stated about the procedure for registering the documents particularly with regard to the execution of the Will and produced the relevant registers, wherein the thumb impression of the executant was obtained. 33. The defendant No.1 though denied that it was not the thumb impression of their mother, did not get the documents referred to any expert for comparison of the thumb impresssion of the executant with that of her admitted thumb impressions, if any available. Though, the appellant - defendant No.1 contended that it was he who paid the entire sale consideration for purchase of "A" schedule property and put it in the name of his mother, Ex.A1, the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.05.1972 would not disclose anything about the sale consideration provided by the appellant - defendant No.1. It would only disclose that the "A" schedule property was sold by one A.Krishnavenamma, W/o.A.Narsimloo in favor of Smt.Gowra Lakshmamma, W/o.Gowra Balaiah (late), resident of Kavadiguda, Hyderabad for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-. 34. It would only disclose that the "A" schedule property was sold by one A.Krishnavenamma, W/o.A.Narsimloo in favor of Smt.Gowra Lakshmamma, W/o.Gowra Balaiah (late), resident of Kavadiguda, Hyderabad for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-. 34. Though the age of the Lakshmamma could not be known from the said document, but the same would reveal that her husband Gowra Balaiah died by the date of execution of the sale deed itself, as it was shown that the sale deed was executed in favor of Gowra Laxmi, W/o.Gowra Balaiah (late). The appellant - defendant No.1 himself filed a document marked under Ex.B4, a memorandum of equitable mortgage executed by him and his mother Gowra Laxmi in favor of one Ganji Ramachandraiah and Ganji Ramulamma on 02.04.1978 creating an equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds of "A" schedule property, as they borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of performing the marriage of plaintiff No.2 Indira Devi. Along with the said document, a promissory note marked as Ex.B5 and a receipt was also filed. The receipt behind the promissory note marked as Ex.B5 would disclose the age of Gowra Lakshmamma, widow of Balaiah as 45 years and Gowra Raju, S/o.Balaiah (appellant - defendant No.1) as 22 years by the date of the said document on 14.02.1978. 35. Thus, as seen from the said document, the defendant No.1 was aged 16 years and was a minor by the date of execution of Ex.A1 on 16.05.1972. Thus, the defendant No.1 was not having capacity to earn by the said date and it cannot be presumed that he had provided the sale consideration for purchasing "A" schedule property and got it executed in the name of his mother. The Will marked under Ex.A2 would also disclose that the executant was in a sound state of mind and executed the said document out of her own free will and pleasure. PW.4 also stated that the Registering Authority would usually verify the health condition of the executant at the time of registration of Will. No evidence was adduced by defendant No.1 to show that the executant was not in a sound state of health or mind by the date of executing Ex.A2. 36. The executant also stated in the Will, the circumstances which compelled her to execute the said document. No evidence was adduced by defendant No.1 to show that the executant was not in a sound state of health or mind by the date of executing Ex.A2. 36. The executant also stated in the Will, the circumstances which compelled her to execute the said document. She stated that she was having two daughters i.e. the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant No.1 - her son. Her daughters were aged 40 and 34 years respectively by that date and her son was aged 38 years. She stated that she was having two house properties, which were A & B properties and her son Gowra Raju (appellant - defendant No.1) was ill-treating her. She stated that he was not giving proper food to her, he abuses her frequently, beats her. Having no alternative as she had no other sons and her daughters were already married, on whom she could not depend, she was suffering in his hands. Inspite of it, her daughters were very often helping her and they had lot of affection towards her. She stated that she along with her son resided at house bearing No.1-3-1001, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad ("B" schedule property) and in the other house bearing No.1-3- 607, Kavadiguda ("A" schedule property) there were four tenants and as soon as the tenants were paying rents to her, her son pounces on her like a vulture and would seize away the rents from her hands. Though, she was a Blood Pressure patient and required atleast Rs.300/- per month for treatment, her son would deprive her of the same also and if asked him for money, he would beat her. Recently he beat her on her hand badly. Her daughter-in-law would pretend as if she was not well and very often would instigate her son with complaints that she was not helping her in the kitchen, whereupon her son would beat her and say that she was a useless woman. She further stated that her son was often telling her that she was no more the owner of the two houses, as he had the documents in his hands. She stated that she never executed any document conveying rights over the above properties to her son. But when she told him that she had not conveyed him the houses and how he was claiming, he said that he could do things without her or her presence. She stated that she never executed any document conveying rights over the above properties to her son. But when she told him that she had not conveyed him the houses and how he was claiming, he said that he could do things without her or her presence. As she was an uneducated lady and as her son, who was a drunkard and was capable of fabricating documents by impersonation and forgery and as she did not know if her son was merely threatening her stating that he got the houses conveyed in his name or in the name of his wife or if he has really done so by fabrication and forgery, she stated that she had not conveyed her rights in the said two houses to her son or to any other person and that she continued to be the owner of the two houses and never executed any document in anybody's favor in respect of the said two houses. She never went to any Registrar Office at any time. Thus, after her demise, if her son or any other person would claim that the two houses belonged to them, the said claim should be treated as null and void and if any document was produced, the same should be considered as fabricated / forged. She stated that her son had taken away all the documents of the two houses from her by force. She stated that through the said Will, she bequeathed the house bearing No.1-3-1001, in which she along with her son was residing, shall alone devolve upon her son Gowra Raju. She stated that although her son was extremely bad, abuses her, it was her wish being his mother, that on her demise, the house bearing No.1-3-1001, Kotha Bazar, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad shall devolve upon her son Gowra Raju. In so far as the other house bearing No.1-3-607 ("A" schedule property) was concerned, she bequeathed the same in equal shares to her two daughters, Smt.K.Mangamma, W/o.K.Sambamurthy and Smt.G. Indramma, W/o.G. Chandrakant and after her demise, the said house shall devolve upon her two daughters. Though the said Will was typed, it was also written in hand that by force, her son started collecting rents from tenants on her behalf and that she would take action on them, if they did not pay the rents personally. Though the said Will was typed, it was also written in hand that by force, her son started collecting rents from tenants on her behalf and that she would take action on them, if they did not pay the rents personally. She also placed a restriction in the Will on her son that he being a drunkard, as there is a possibility of his disposing of the house and squandering the money, he could not convey the house in any manner to any person during his lifetime than to enjoy the same with his family. 37. Thus, the executant had taken all precautions in executing the Will and in dividing the property rationally between her children as per her wish. She stated the circumstances, under which she was compelled to execute the Will, the conduct and behavior of her son towards her. But, however, being a mother, bequeathed the "B" schedule property in which they were residing, to him and also had taken a precaution that the same could not be sold during his life time except to enjoy it. She had bequeathed the "A" schedule property equally to her two married daughters. The evidence of PWs.2 to 4 would prove that the Will was executed in a sound state of mind by the executant and she bequeathed the properties to her children on her own free will. PWs.2 to 4 had no ill-will or enmity against appellant - defendant No.1 or any bias towards the plaintiffs. As such, it can be considered that Ex.A2 Will was a genuine document executed by the executant in a sound state of mind. The Will was proved by the plaintiffs in accordance with law by examining PWs.2 to 4 and as per the Will both the plaintiffs are entitled to an equal share in the "A" schedule property and the defendant No.1 is entitled to be allotted the “B” schedule property. 38. As such, points 2 and 3 are answered accordingly in favor of respondents 1 and 2 - plaintiffs as against the appellant - defendant No.1. 39. Point No.4: To what result? In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 09.06.2010 passed in O.S.No.577 of 2006 by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.