HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH S.A.No.19 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 23-11-2010 passed in A.S.No.533 of 2009 on the fie of the Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur, whereunder and whereby, the decree and judgment dated 26-03-2009 in O.S.No.1433 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, were confirmed. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff who filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares and to allot one such share to her favour. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the sister of defendants 1 and 2 and the suit schedule property originally belongs to one Dontireddy Rangamma, who is the maternal grandmother of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2. Rangamma gifted the property in favour of Tiyyagura Seetha Mahalakshmamma, who is their, and Mahalakshmamma died intestate and therefore, all the parties to the suit i.e. the sister and the brothers are entitled for equal shares. 3. It is the case of the defendants 1 and 2 that the property originally belongs to Rangamma who was their maternal grandmother and the said Rangamma executed Ex.B-1, Will, dated 01-08-2001, bequeathing the said property in favour of their father Venkata Reddy, D.W.2. Subsequently, Rangamma died on 26-07-2002 and by virtue of Ex.B-1 Will, their father became the absolute owner and their father executed a registered settlement deed, Ex.B-2, dated 23-10-2006 in favour of D-2 and his son, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition of the plaint schedule property. 4. As it is the case of the plaintiff that her mother died intestate, herself and her two brothers i.e. D-1 and D-2 are entitled to equal shares. But it is the case of the defendants that their grandmother executed a Will, Ex.B-1, in favour of their father and the father in-turn gifted the said property in favour of D-2 and his son. It is not in dispute that Rangamma executed a gift deed settlilng the property in favour of Seethamahalakshmamma, mother of the plaintiff and Seethamahalakshmamma died intestate, hence according to the plaintiff, she is entitled to the equal share along with her brothers. 5. However, the defendants, to prove the execution of Ex.B-1, Will, they have examined D.W.2, their father, in whose favour Ex.B-1, Will, was executed, The attestor of the Will was also examined as D.W.4. The trial Court held that the execution of Ex.B-1, Will, has been proved as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.533 of 2009 and the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record. 7. The appellant-plaintiff is the sister of the respondents- defendants 1 and 2. Admittedly, the property belongs to their maternal grandmother Rangamma. Rangamma executed a gift settlement in favour of Sethamahalakshmamma, their mother and therefore, the mother of the plaintiff and defendants was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, and therefore, the said property is not the joint family property of her father. Therefore, the claim of plaintiff depends upon the legality and validity of Ex.B-1, Will, said to have been executed in favour of their father. 8. To prove the Will under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, one of the attesting witnesses was examined. Under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, the attestor has to witness the signature of the testator and similarly, the testator also should witness the attestation. The said legal requirement has been complied with by examining D.W.4, the attestor of the Will, and as per the evidence of D.W.4, he was present at the time of execution of the Will. He further deposed that testatrix gave dictation to the scribe to draft the Will and thereafter it was got typed on stamp papers. He also stated about the extent of the land covered by Ex.B-1 will. Therefore, the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of entire evidence, rightly dismissed the appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the will is not typed on the stamp paper but it is typed on white paper. But they could not file such copy of the Will either before the trial Court or the appellate Court, and even before this Court. Therefore, I do not see any substantial questions of law that arises for consideration in this second appeal. 10. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 29-10-2011 Kvr