THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1167 of 2010 April 01, 2011 Between: K.Narasimhulu, S/o.Narasimhulu And others ... Appellants And N.Krishna Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1167 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The first respondent herein obtained a money decree against the respondents 2 to 7 for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,000/-. To execute the said decree in O.S.No.145 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, the first respondent instituted the execution proceedings being O.E.P. No.44 of 2004 under Order XXI Rules 54 and 64 to 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The properties of promissor (who is no more) were attached. At that stage, the petitioners herein filed application being E.A. No.154 of 2006 under Order XXI Rules 58 and 69 read with Section 151 of CPC praying the Court to raise the attachment. The Executing Court allowed the application by order dated 25.4.2008. The appeal by the first respondent being A.S.No.13 of 2008 was allowed on 16.8.2010 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, reversing that of the Executing Court. Being aggrieved, the present second appeal is filed. The case of the petitioners in their application under Order XXI Rule 58 (3) of CPC is as follows. The E.P. schedule property admeasuring Acs.2.53 in S.No.817/1 of Yenugondapalem village with a well was owned by their grandfather, Late Lakshmanna (promissor of the suit promissory note), who had purchased the same from the Decree Holder under registered sale deed dated 18.1.1985. The grandfather executed a Will dated 12.7.1997 in favour of the petitioners. The Decree Holder and the Judgment Debtors are aware of the same. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalakada, also made necessary entries in pattadar passbooks and revenue records entering the name of the first petitioner, and that after obtaining loan of Rs.30,000/- from Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank, the petitioners dug a bore well. It was also alleged that the Decree Holder created promissory note with the active connivance of the Judgment Debtors to knock away the property. The application was opposed by the Decree Holder. He alleged that the Will set up by the petitioners is forged and fabricated document, that he denied the petitioners’ allegation of obtaining pattadar passbooks and obtaining loan for digging a borewell and called upon proof. The first petitioner gave evidence as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. P.Ws.2 to 4 were also examined. The first respondent himself examined as R.W.1. Considering the evidence, as already mentioned, the learned Junior Civil Judge believed the version of the petitioners that the Will was executed. Having held that the Will has been proved, he raised the attachment. The first appellate Court, however, reversed the finding. In the memorandum of appeal, the appellants raised the following grounds: the lower appellate Court failed to frame point for consideration under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC properly by considering the material on record; that the Court below did not appreciate Ex.A2 Will executed by late Lakshmanna though it is validly proved by the scribe (P.W.2) and the attestors (P.Ws.3 and 4); that the lower appellate court erred in rejecting the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 as interested witnesses; and that the lower appellate Court committed an error in going to the question of limitation though it was never raised by the parties. The claim of the appellants entirely rested on Ex.A2 Will dated 12.7.1997 alleged to have been executed by their grandfather, late Lakshmanna, who is the promissor of the suit promissory note. To prove the execution, the appellants examined the scribe as P.W.2 and the attestors as P.Ws.3 and 4. The trial Court instead of considering the proof of Will as one issue, considered the aspect under six points which are as follows: (1) Whether the petitioners have proved their case and have proved right and title, possession and enjoyments over the petition schedule property and have proved the genuineness of Will by virtue of their evidence or not? (2) Whether the petitioners have proved their case and have proved right and have proved right and title, possession and enjoyments over the petition schedule property by virtue of any documentary evidence or not? (3) Whether the petitioners have proved the due execution of Ex.A2 Will and contents and recitals of Ex.A2 by virtue of evidence of Scribe of Ex.A2 or not? (4) Whether the petitioners have proved the due execution of Ex.A2 Will and contents and recitals of Ex.A2 by virtue of evidence of attestors of Ex.A2 or not? (5) Whether the petitioners have removed all the suspicious circumstances as alleged by the respondents around the Will or not? and (6) Whether the respondents have proved their case and have disproved the evidence of petitioners and independent evidence of petitioners and documentary evidence of petitioners or not? This is very peculiar consideration. The proof of the Will and the point whether the execution of it is surrounded by circumstances are two different things. Insofar as proof of the Will is concerned, the propounder of the Will is required to prove it as per Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by examining one or more witnesses. When the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, it is for the propounder to remove all the suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court. The mere examination of the scribe and the attestors would satisfy the procedural part of the evidence, but the substantive part remains to be proved by the propounder. There is not much discussion about the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 in the trial Court judgment. The appellate Court has gone into these aspects and found that there were glaring lacunae in the evidence of P.W.2, the scribe, and P.Ws.3 and 4, the attestors. Besides that, these witnesses agreed that they are closely related to the executor of the Will as well as the appellants. P.W.3 is none other than the son-in-law of the executor and P.W.4 was found to be interested in the appellants. The scribe, P.W.2, is not a professional document writer, who made a statement that Ex.A2 was drafted in the premises of the office of the Sub-Registrar. In such an event, it was incumbent on P.W.1 to show that why it was not registered and why it was kept away from the relatives for quite a long time even though the property was attached on 13..6.2004 in execution of the Will. The first appellate Court, thus, considered the evidence adduced by the appellants in judicious and objective manner before coming to the conclusion that Ex.A2 Will is not proved according to law. There is no dispute that at the instance of the first respondent, the petition schedule land was attached on 13.6.2004 and the appellants filed E.A.No.154 of 2006 under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC on 16.11.2006. The appellants do not dispute that a claim preferred under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC is an application subject to period of limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In that view of the matter, the application is clearly barred. As the question of limitation ordinarily can be raised at any stage of the proceedings by the party or by the Court itself, the submission that such a plea was not raised is misconceived. The other questions regarding possession etc., may not help the appellants at this stage especially when the proof of Will is a question of fact which has been considered by the first appellate Court with reference to the evidence on record. The second appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 01, 2011 YS