APHC010341022025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WEDNESDAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

SECOND APPEAL NO.277 OF 2025

Between:

1. KURAKULA SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS

1. KURAKULA YESURATNAM AND ANOTHER

Counsel for the Appellants

1. V. VENKATA MAYUR

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. P.S.P.SURESH KUMAR

Judgment Reserved on :

Judgment Pronounced on :

Judgment Uploaded on :

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

SECOND APPEAL NO.277 OF 2025

1. KURAKULA SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS

AND

1. KURAKULA YESURATNAM AND ANOTHER

...RESPONDENTS

Appellants:

V. VENKATA MAYUR

Counsel for the Respondent:

P.S.P.SURESH KUMAR

Judgment Reserved on : 10.10.2025

Judgment Pronounced on : 07.01.2026

Judgment Uploaded on : 08.01.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3209]

DAY OF JANUARY

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

APPELLANTS

...RESPONDENTS

2

The Court made the following judgment:

The unsuccessful defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 in O.S.No.44 of 1997 on the

file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, aggrieved by the

judgment dated 30.12.2024, passed by the 12

th

Additional District Judge,

Pithapuram in A.S.No.87 of 2014, confirming the judgment and decree of the

Trial Court, filed the present Second Appeal.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are

arrayed in the suit.

3) The plaintiff one Smt.Kurakula Yesuratnam, filed the above said suit

seeking the relief of declaration and recovery of possession of the suit

schedule property of an extent of Ac.0-75 cents in Sy.No.294/1 and an extent

of Ac.0-94 cents in Sy.No.293/2 i.e., wet land an extent of Ac.1-69 cents in all,

situated in Viravada village of Pithapuram Mandal. In the plaint, it is inter alia

pleaded that one Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao has three sons and three

daughters. He gave the 1

st

defendant in adoption to his brother Lovaraju and

he was brought up by the said Lovaraju. The marriage of the 1

st

defendant

was performed by Mr.Lovaraju and since the date of adoption of the 1

st

defendant he has nothing to do with the properties of his natural family, that as

on the date of adoption Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao has no ancestral property

and subsequently the said Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao acquired immovable

properties with the assistance of his other two sons. Mr.Kurakula Venkata

Rao, after the death of his wife about 12 years ago, used to reside in the

house of the plaintiff as she is no other than his granddaughter and wife of the

3

2

nd

defendant. It is further stated that the said Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao was

in the care and custody of the plaintiff and she did all services till he died on

21.02.1997, that during his lifetime the said Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao

executed his last Will on 18.02.1997 in a sound and disposing state of mind

bequeathing the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. After the death of the

said Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao, the 1

st

defendant obstructed the husband of

the plaintiff to cultivate the suit schedule property and after issuing a legal

notice, the plaintiff filed the suit initially for recovery of possession and

thereafter sought relief of declaration of title by amending the prayer. By way

of rejoinder the plaintiff also pleaded that the Wills executed by the said

Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao prior to the last Will dated 18.02.1997 have no

sanctity and the defendants have no right to challenge the alienations or

bequeaths made by the said Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao in his Will dated

18.02.1997.

4) The 1

st

defendant initially filed written statement and an additional

written statement after the amendment of the prayer in the suit. While denying

the plaint averments, it was inter alia pleaded that settling the suit scheduled

properties the said Mr.Karukula Venkata Rao executed a Registered Will

dated 20.02.1995 in favour of the 1

st

defendant and further that the suit is filed

with the help of a forged and fabricated Will. It was also pleaded that there is

no possibility to execute the alleged Will dated 18.02.1997 in favour of the

plaintiff as the said Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao was bedridden since 5 to 6 days

prior to his death.

4

5) Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 filed separate written statement denying the

plaint averments and that a Registered Will dated 20.02.1995 was executed in

their favour and prior to the execution of the Will in favour of the 1

st

defendant,

the Will dated 18.02.1997 is fabricated.

6) The learned Trial Court settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the unregistered Will dated 18.02.197 is true, valid and

binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of his title to suit

property?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as prayed

for?

4. To What relief?

7) It also framed additional issue – “Whether Ex.B2 dated 20.02.1995 is

genuine Will or not?”

8) To substantiate her case, the plaintiff herself was examined as PW 1

and got examined PWs 2 to 11. She got marked Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of

the defendants they got examined DWs 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.B1 to B9.

9) Learned Trial Court after considering the contentions advanced on both

sides and by appreciating both oral and documentary evidence answered the

Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff holding that Ex.A1 dated 18.02.1997 is

true, valid and binding on the defendants. In so far as additional issue is

concerned, it held that Ex.B2 was true, valid and executed by the said

Mr.Kurukula Venkata Rao. However, in the light of the findings/conclusions

arrived at, the learned Trial Court while holding that Ex.A1 is the last Will

executed by Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao and all the previous Wills executed by

5

him contrary to Ex.A1 are unenforceable in law, answered the Issue No.2

holding that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration in respect of the

plaint schedule property. While taking into account the orders passed by the

Tenancy Court, Pithapuram, in ATC No.22 of 1996 (Ex.A12) against the

Defendant No.1 and as the plaintiff established her title in respect of the plaint

schedule property by virtue of Ex.A1 dated 18.02.1997 i.e., unregistered Will,

which was upheld by it, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit granting the

relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule land from the Defendant

No.1 declaring that he has no right, title over the plaint schedule property and

the same is liable to be delivered to the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court also

directed the Defendant No.1 to deliver the plaint schedule property to the

plaintiff within two months from the date of decree.

10) Against the said Judgment and decree, the defendants filed A.S.No.870

of 2014. Before the Appellate Court various grounds were raised, inter alia, to

the effect that the plaintiff failed to prove her case beyond all probabilities, that

the plaintiff failed to discharge her burden to prove her case and she cannot

depend upon the weaknesses of the case of the defendants and the learned

trial Court without considering the evidence on record in a proper perspective

decreed the suit.

11) The learned Appellate Court formulated the following points for

consideration:

1. Whether the Appellants / defendants 1, 3 and 4 have established

any ground for interfering with the decree and Judgment dated

6

28.02.2012 in O.S.No.44/1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Pithapuram?

2. Result of the appeal?

12) After discussing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on

both sides in brief, it opined that before recording findings / arriving at

conclusions on point No.1, the following aspects have to be answered:

1. Whether the 1

st

defendant was given in adoption to Kurakula

Lovaraju who is brother of Kurakula Venkatarao?

2. Whether Ex.B2 Will is genuine, valid and binds on the plaintiff?

3. Whether the executant Kurakula Venkatarao lived in the house of D2

and plaintiff and he was looked after by them and whether he

executed Ex.A1 Will and same is valid and binding on the

defendants?

4. Whether the Ex.A1 and A5 Wills were genuine and Ex.A1 Will

binding on the defendant?

13) The learned Appellate Court after meticulously appreciating the oral

evidence, recorded its categorical findings, which are extracted hereunder:

a) The 1

st

defendant / DW 1 is adopted son of Mr.Kurukula Venkata Rao

b) Ex.B2 Registered Will dated 20.02.1995 and Ex.B4 Kowl Deed (Lease

deed) dated 20.07.1995 were genuine and valid documents.

c) Ex.A1 is final Will executed by Mr.Kurukula Venkata Rao.

d) Evidence of PW 1 established that she is daughter-in-law cum

maternal granddaughter of Mr.Kurukula Venkata Rao and after the

death of wife of Mr.Kurukula Venkata Rao, he used to stay with plaintiff

and the 2

nd

defendant in their house and plaintiff looked after the

7

welfare of Mr.Kurukula Venkata Rao. As she served him, he executed

Ex.A1 Will bequeathing the properties covered under Ex.A1 to her.

14) The learned Appellate Court in the light of the conclusions recorded by

it, dismissed the appeal holding that the plaintiff successfully proved execution

of Ex.A1 Will by clearing all suspicious circumstances and she proved that by

the date of execution of Ex.A1, the executant Mr.KurukulaVenkata Rao was in

sound and disposing state of mind.

15) Against the judgment of the Appellate Court, the present appeal is

preferred under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and the learned

counsel for the appellants made submissions that the following substantial

questions of Law arise for adjudication :

a) Whether the propounder of the Will has satisfied the conscious of the

Court by removing the suspicious circumstances?

b) Whether the propounder could prove the Will is genuine in view of the

suspicious circumstances?

c) Whether the finding of the Courts below to accept the Will, without properly

appreciating the evidence of defendant D.Ws.6 to 8 and exhibit B3 is

valid?

16) The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Trial Court as

also the Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the evidence adduced on

behalf of the plaintiff would hardly support her case with reference to the

execution of the disputed Will dated 18.02.1997 (Ex.A1). He contends that the

execution of the said Will in favour of the plaintiff was surrounded by

suspicious circumstances and the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of

proving the same, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Laying much

8

emphasis on Ex.B3 i.e., the Certificate dated 24.11.1997 issued by a Doctor

(D.W.11), he submits that the learned Trial Court had not properly considered

the evidence of the Doctor, who attended the executant of the alleged Will

dated 18.02.1997, just few days prior to the death of the executant in a proper

perspective, that the learned Appellate Court also failed to appreciate that

even as per the said Certificate Ex.B3, Sri Kurakula Venkata Rao, the

executant of the Will was in-coherent and not responding to the questions of

the Doctor and in those circumstances, the questions of execution of a Will by

him does not arise at all. He submits that the findings recorded by the Trial

Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court are contrary to the material on

record and as the Courts below upheld the contentions with regard to

execution of the alleged Will dated 18.02.1997 without properly appreciating

the evidence let in on behalf of the defendants / appellants, the order under

appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is liable to be set

aside. Making the said submissions and placing reliance on the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lilian Coelho & Ors., v. Myra Philomena

Coalho

1

, the learned counsel urges for allowing the appeal by setting aside

the orders and decree of the Courts below.

17) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents made

submissions to sustain the order under appeal. He contends that the Trial

Court as also the Appellate Court had examined the issues formulated by

thorough scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record and

1

2025 INSC 7

9

assigned cogent reasons for granting relief in favour of the plaintiff. He

submits that the contention with regard to execution of the Will dated

18.02.1997 in suspicious circumstances, is misconceived and merits no

appreciation. He submits that the evidence of the witnesses on the plaintiff’s

side categorically establishes the execution of the Will dated 18.02.1997

beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the contentions contra are not

sustainable. He submits that the attestor of the disputed Will was examined

and the execution of the Will dated 18.02.1997 was clearly established. He

also submits that the contention with reference to Ex.B3 is of no avail to the

appellants in view of the categorical finding recorded by the Trial Court, which

was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Court. While seeking dismissal of

the appeal, the learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in U.Sudheera and Others v. C.Yashoda and Others

2

.

18) This Court has considered the submissions made and examined the

substantial questions of law extracted above with reference to the material on

record.

19) At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that the entire case of

the respondent / plaintiff was based on Ex.A1 dated 18.02.1997. In support of

the respondent / plaintiff’s case of execution of the said Will, oral evidence

was adduced and the learned Trial court after appreciating the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 6, answered the issues in this regard in favour of the plaintiff. It

categorically held that from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, it was established

2

(2025) 4 SCC 215

10

that as on the date of Ex.A1, the testator is in fit state of mind and after the

death of his wife, the testator resided in the house of his granddaughter, who

is also daughter-in-law i.e., wife of defendant No.2 and out of love and

affection, the testator modified Ex.A5 and executed Ex.A1 and it was duly

attested by P.Ws.2 to 4 and within the short span after execution of Ex.A1, the

testator died. Even the Appellate Court, after discussing the relevant

evidence adduced by the respective parties at length, recorded its conclusions

that by the date of death of Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao, he was in the house of

the plaintiff and they looked after the welfare of the said Venkata Rao and he

executed Ex.A1 Will, after execution of Ex.A5 and further that with regard to

execution of Ex.A1, Will the attestors and scribe clearly deposed about the

manner of execution of Ex.A1, date, time and that it did not find any

inconsistence in the evidence of attestors and scribe of Ex.A1, and that Ex.A1-

Will was clearly proved by the evidence of the attestors and scribe of Ex.A1-

Will, that it is final and genuine.

20) Though the learned counsel for the appellant sought to impress upon

the Court that in the light of Ex.B3 and the evidence of the Doctor-D.W.11, the

executant i.e., Mr.Kurakula Venkata Rao was not in a sound and disposing

state of mind and the execution of the Will was surrounded by suspicious

circumstances, the same merits no appreciation. The learned Trial Court had

specifically dealt with this issue and has not given any credence to the

evidence of D.W.11 much less Ex.B3-Certificate. In Para No.32, the learned

Trial Court while answering the Issue No.1 opined as follows:

11

“32. Now coming into the evidence of D.W.11 who issued Ex.B-3

which reveals that at request of his brother he went to Venkatarao to

examine him and he has not gone with any medical kit and on physical

examination, he came to conclusion that he was suffering with

breathlessness and he do not know Venkatarao died on 24.02.1997 and

he has not gone to Venkatarao after his death and denied that he has not

visited Venkatarao. The evidence of P.W.1 also reveals that prior to death,

the testator suffered with Ayasam and in the evidence of D.W.1 also

reveals that the testator suffered with breathlessness and the evidence of

D.W.11 did not reveals that he is speechless. But as seen from Ex.B-3

certificate it reveals that the patient is incoherent and not able to respond

to his questions, but the said facts was not deposed by the D.W.11, his

evidence only in his chief-examination is that as on the date of Ex.B-3 the

patient’s condition is feeling difficulties in taking respiration. Except that he

did not depose that the patient is incoherent and not responded to his

question. Therefore, in the light of evidence of D.W.11 since he did not

depose the circumstances stated in Ex.B-3, B-3 has no credence.”

21. Appreciating the evidence on record, the Appellate Court concurred with

the findings / conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court with regard to the

evidence of D.W.11. The Appellate Court scrupulously sieved through the

evidence and observed that D.W.11 went to the house of the executant

Venkata Rao to examine him without carrying any medical kit and without

conducting any tests issued Ex.B3-Certificate and that it did not disclose that

after the medical test report, the said Certificate was issued. As noted above,

both the Courts below have recorded categorical conclusions with regard to

execution of the Will dated 18.02.1997 in favour of the plaintiff and the same

are based on sound reasoning and supported by evidence adduced on behalf

of the plaintiff. Therefore, the contention that the plaintiff failed to prove the

12

execution of Will which was surrounded by suspicious circumstances is

misconceived. That apart, the submissions made more particularly with

reference to the factual aspects which are concurrently held in favour of the

plaintiff, merits no consideration and this Court see no questions of law much

less, substantial questions of law in the case on hand, as sought to be urged.

22) In Lilian Coelho’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining an

order passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay reversing the

judgment of a learned Single Judge. While setting aside the order of the

Division Bench and remanding the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter

alia opined that even after holding that a Will is genuine, it is within the

jurisdiction of the Court to hold that it is not worthy to act upon as being

shrouded with suspicious circumstances when the propounder failed to

remove such suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court.

23) The judgment in the considered opinion of this Court is not applicable to

the present fact situation as no suspicious circumstances exist with regard to

the Will executed in favour of the plaintiff and the execution of the same was

proved by examination of the relevant witnesses.

24) In U.Sudheera’s case, on which reliance is placed by the learned

counsel for the respondent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining a

short question as to whether the High Court can pass any ad interim order for

a limited period before framing substantial questions of law, dealing with a

Second Appeal filed under Order 41 read with Section 100 CPC. In Para

No.16.4, a reference to the judgment of Roop Singh v. Ram Singh (2003 3

13

SCC 708) was made, wherein, it was held that under Section 100 CPC

jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal is confined only to

such appeals which involve a substantial question of law and it does not

confer any jurisdiction on the High Court to interfere with pure questions of

fact while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.

25) Further, at Para No.19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined as follows:

“19. Thus, the law is clear that a second appeal will be maintainable

before the High Court, only if it is satisfied that the case involves a

substantial question of law. If no substantial question of law arises, the

second appeal could not have been entertained and the same ought to

have been dismissed, as the jurisdiction of the High Court itself is not yet

invoked.”

26) In the present case, on an appreciation of the submissions made, this

Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial questions of Law are

involved except questions of fact which are concurrently held against the

appellant.

27) In the aforesaid view of the matter and the legal position referred to

supra, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

_____________________

NINALA JAYASURYA, J

Date: 07.01. 2026

BLV

14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

S.A.No.277 OF 2025

Dt: 07.01.2026

BLV

15