A bequest of a site is adeemed if the site has been converted into property of a different kind, such as a building, before the testator's death.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff, Bhimavarapu Parasuramareddi, in O. S. No. III of 1959 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Vijayawada, was the son of Bhimavarapu Sreeramulu, the 1st defendant in the suit. The 2nd defendant, Bhimavarapu venkata Subbamma, was the third wife of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff was the son by the 1st defendant s first wife. The plaintiff s mother died when he was three years old. Subsequently, the 1st defendant married one Anjamma. Then, at the instance of the plaintiff s maternal uncle, the plaintiff become divided from his father, the 1st defendant under the partition deed dated 13th May, 1935. This suit was for a declaration of the plaintiff s title to the building shown as A B C D in the plaint plan and the site appertaining thereto and for recovery of exclusive possession of rooms shown as. AT and y in the said house after evicting the defendants, who were his father and his step-mother. The plaintiff s case was that the sites on which the building was constructed were purchased by himself and his grandmother, Mahalakshmamma under sale deeds, Exhibits A-16 and B-6 dated 3rd november, 1943, and 1st November, 1943, respectively. Thereafter, the house was constructed on the said site. On 31st May, 1945, the plaintiff s paternal grandmother, Mahalakshmamma executed a registered will bequeathing all her properties to the plaintiff. In the year 1954, Mahalakshmamma and the plaintiff pooled their resources and jointly constructed a terraced building shown as A B C D in the plaint plan at the cost of Rs. 6,000. Mahalakshmamma died on 12th March, 1956, and her entire estate devolved on the plaintiff. As the 1st defendant assisted Mahalakshmamma and the plaintiff in the construction of the house and as he is the plaintiff s father, the plaintiff allowed him to occupy a portion of the house shown as X in the plaint plan as licensee till such time as the plaintiff married. The plaintiff married in the year 1957 and his wife joined him in 1958. But the 1st defendant did not vacate the room. Hence this suit is filed. The 1st defendant denied the allegations in the plaint and claimed that the sale deeds, Exhibit A-16 and B-6 were benami for himself. The 1st defendant himself borrowed monies for the construction and the suit house was constructed on the site in the name of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and his mother. It was further pleaded that the will in favour of the plaintiff executed by Mahalakshmamma does not confer any rights on the plaintiff in respect of the suit house, which was constructed after the execution of the will and therefore, in any view, the suit house passe d to the 1st defendant after the death of Mahalakshmamma under law. Both the Courts below decreed the suit. They found that the two sale deeds, exhibits A-16 and B-6 were not benami for the 1st defendant. They also found that the original of the will, Exhibit A-15 was executed by Mahalakshmamma in a sound and disposing state of mind and that her interest in the site purchased under exhibit B-6 and the house constructed on the two sites covered by Exhibits A-16 and B-6 passed under the original of the will Exhibit A-15 to the plaintiff. On those findings, the suit was decreed declaring the plaintiff s title to the suit house and directing recovery of the possession of rooms X and T therein after evicting the defendants therefrom and restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff s possession of the suit building thereafter. Pending the appeal to the lower appellate Court the plaintiff died and his wife was brought on record as his legal representative. She is the sole respondent in this second appeal. It is first argued by Mr. Narayana Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence in thi s case that late Mahalakshmamma executed the original of the will, Exhibit A-15 in a sound and disposing state of mind. The argument is that the will should have been proved by the evidence of one of the attest

Click Here to Read the rest of this document