THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1337 OF 2000 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS {SR} NO.62139 OF 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: Respondents 1 and 2 filed S.O.P.No.1026 of 1996 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, claiming succession for the immovable properties left by late Pendyala Seetharatnam. She is the wife of late Pendyala Sankaram, who is the brother of respondents 1 and 2. They pleaded that their brother Pendyala Sankaram predeceased Seetharatnam and in the name of late Sankaram, there existed certain post office deposits and bank deposit accounts. According to them, they are the nearest legal heirs of late Seetharatnam. The appellant is the nephew, i.e., brother’s son of late Seetharatnam. He placed reliance upon a Will dated 29.11.1992 said to be executed in his favour. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 are the sons of two brothers of late Sankaram and the sixth respondent is the father of the appellant. The O.P. was mainly opposed by the appellant herein by placing reliance upon the Will. Through its order dated 13.01.2000, the trial Court held that respondents 1 to 5 are entitled to the property left by late Seetharatnam along with other similar legal heirs of Sankaram, if any. The same is challenged in this appeal. Sri K.Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Will marked as Ex.B1, dated 29.11.1992, executed by late Seetharatnam, was proved beyond any doubt by examining the attestors and scribe and the trial Court was not justified in ignoring the same. He contends that respondents 1 to 5 cannot be said to be the immediate legal heirs of the deceased. Respondents 1 and 2 filed Cross Objections {SR} No.62139 of 2000 feeling aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court to the effect that respondents 3 to 5 and other legal heirs of late Sankaram are also entitled to the benefit. They contend that the fathers of respondents 3 to 5 have predeceased to late Sankaram and in that view of the matter, they are not entitled to any share. Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5, submits that even if the fathers of her clients predeceased Sankaram, their entitlement in law cannot be denied. Sankaram and his wife, Seetharatnam, did not have any children of their own. The husband died first and the wife died later. By the time she died, Seetharatnam had scheduled properties to her credit. There were no Class-I heirs for them. The appellant herein, who is the brother’s son of Seetharatnam, resisted his claim on a Will. To prove their case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and filed Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the appellant and other respondents, R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were filed. The trial Court faced its own difficulty in the context of identifying the legal heirs of the deceased, Seetharatnam. Further, it became necessary to identify the legal heirs of her deceased husband also. None of the parties to the proceedings are Class-I heirs of either of them. Respondents 1 and 2 are admittedly the sisters of late Sankaram. They can be said to be the most proximate legal heirs of Sankaram compared to others. The trial Court recognized the rights, not only of respondents 1 and 2, but also the children of other brothers of Sankaram. No exception can be taken to such an approach. The Will marked as Ex.B1 and relied upon by the appellant was disbelieved by the trial Court by mentioning various reasons such as that the deceased died while on pilgrimage and that there were several other proximate relations to her. Learned counsel for the appellant is not able to demonstrate as to how the findings recorded by the trial Court are unsustainable. The proof of Will would always depend upon the preponderance of evidence and existance, or otherwise of suspicious circumstances. Be that as it may, the appeal was presented in the year 2000. For the past more than a decade, there did not exist any order of stay. The result is that the suit schedule property was drawn, distributed and enjoyed in terms of decree and nothing remains to be decided at this stage. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objections {SR} are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 22nd July 2010 RRB