THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPAL No.2089 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.P.No.14 of 1996 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, against the respondents herein in respect of the deposits to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- left by his father late Somanna. It was pleaded that Somanna executed a Will dated 18.06.1993 bequeathing the amount equally in favour of the appellant and the first respondent and that he died on 21.08.1993. The first respondent is the son and respondents 2 and 3 are the sisters of the appellant. One of the brothers, by name, Satyanarayana died and respondents 5 and 6 are his children. The Second respondent died during the pendency of the suit and her legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 12 to 16. The O.P. was mainly opposed by respondent No.7, the son of the deceased fourth respondent. It was alleged that the Will propounded by the appellant is fabricated one and that the amount left by the deceased must be shared by his legal representatives in accordance with the law of Succession. Through its judgment, dated 30.11.1999, the trial Court dismissed the O.P. Hence, this C.M.A. Heard Sri C. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. The petitioner was not the only legal representative of the deceased. Even according to him, he has two brothers and two sisters. On behalf of the petitioner PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked. The seventh respondent deposed as RW.1, but no documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court found several suspicious circumstances as regards the Will marked as Ex.P.11. Several contradictions were elicited through PW.2, one of the attestors. The evidence of PW.3 was rejected as not reliable. No other evidence was forthcoming. Once the appellant failed to prove the Will the unescapable conclusion is that the estate of the deceased was to be shared by his legal representatives in accordance with law. At any rate, for the past more than eight years, no interim order was in force and the result is that the amount has already been drawn and shred by the respective parties in accordance with law. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 15th October, 2009 Js.