THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1611 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: Mother of the appellant by name Seetaravamma died on 16.02.1995. She was possessed of certain deposits in the second respondent-Bank, by the time she died. The appellant filed S.C.O.P.No.102 of 1996 in her favour under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in the Court of the District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. The first respondent, who is the son of the appellant, claimed the property left by Seetaravamma. The O.P. was resisted by the first respondent. He placed reliance upon a Will dated 11.02.1995 stated to have executed by Late Seetaravamma in his favour. Through its judgment dated 29.02.2000, the trial Court dismissed the O.P. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri T.S.Anand, learned counsel for the appellant. The first respondent is not served with notice. The dispute as to the succession to the property left by late Seetaravamma is between the appellant and her son, the first respondent. If the property was to devolve through natural succession, the appellant would certainly have been entitled to claim the schedule property. The plea of the appellant was resisted by her son, the first respondent. To prove her case, the appellant deposed as P.W.1 and filed Exs.A1 to A20. The first respondent, on the other hand, examined R.Ws.1 to 4 and filed Ex.B1, the photograph and Ex.B2, Will dated 11.02.1995. The burden upon the appellant did not rest much on account of her own disputed relationship with the deceased. Heavy burden rested upon the first respondent to prove the Will. To discharge the same, he examined the attestors and scribe of the Will. Nothing unnatural was elicited from those witnesses. Once it has emerged that the mother of the appellant executed the Will, bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the first respondent, there is no other alternative, except to recognize his right to the suit property. The trial Court took the correct view of the matter. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 22nd July 2010 RRB