Pecheti Swamigadu and Another vs Yerrapragada Ayapparasu and Another

The judgment of the Subordinate Judge with regard to items Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be sustained. Assuming it to be proved that the 4th defendant, either by herself or in collusion with some one else, suppressed the Will executed by Gangarazu, the plaintiffs had still to prove that, according to the terms of that Will, they would be entitled to recover one-fourth of his properties. The only evidence adduced to prove the contents of the Will has been disbelieved by the Subordinate Judge. The presumption that the Will would be unfavourable to the 4th (defendant will not justify us in presuming that it gave any specific portion of Gangarazu''s property to the legatee through whom the the plaintiffs claim. In fact, we could not make any presumption as to the actual contents of Will. See Venkata Narasimha Naidu v. Bhashyakarlu Naidu 25 M.P 367 : 6 C.W.N. 641 : 29 I.A. 76.

With regard to item No. 3 there is no question of law for our consideration. The judgments of the Courts below must be set aside with regard to items Nos. 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs'' suit dismissed as regards those items. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs throughout.