SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(AP) 228

In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
Ravada Appala Reddy & Others – Appellants
Versus
Kadambari Sarojini Devi & Others – Respondents
Appeal Suit Nos. 162 of 1997 & 1040 of 2000
Decided on : 29-04-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:M. Ram Mohan, M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, R2, V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, R4 to R6, G. Sudha, Advocates.

Headnote:

Civil Law – Will – Proof of – Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition schedule property as prayed for? Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of whole (of) item No.3 of the plaint A Schedule property after ejecting the defendants therefrom?–Suit for possession of plaint A schedule properties to respondent after dividing and allotting their shares in items 1, 2 and 4 thereof and for possession of whole of item 3 of A schedule properties after rejecting the defendants for determination of future profits from the date of suit till possession is delivered, for past profits with interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs pleaded case of respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs that the predecessor in title - Devi married one Reddy on that it was an inter-caste marriage between a Brahmin and a Reddy; that in marriage of respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 took place with Krishnamurthy; that in the year Reddy died and that the appellant No.1/defendant No.1 was born on to his natural father –Reddy, and in the year 1962 he was adopted by Reddy prior to his marriage with Devi. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs further pleaded that after the death of her husband, filed which was later numbered as O.S.No.129 of 1976 on the file of learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, for partition against appellant No.1 and, his sister and Smt.– his daughter Devi could not raise finances for fighting the litigation, she has compromised the dispute leading to passing of a compromise decree dated 23.01.1980 in I.A.No.20 of 1980 in O.S.No.129 of 1976. That later Devi was admitted to hospital for high blood pressure and after getting discharged from the hospital, appellant No.1 brought her to his house, got Will dated 11.03.1980 executed by her and got the same registered. That respondent No.1 is the only sister of late Smt Devi and she had no other near relatives – Held, expressed ignorance of the manner in which the Will was executed by each of them pleading that the other person has personal knowledge, that is hardly of any significance. Except respondent Devi did not have any blood relation. Appellant No.1 was adopted by the husband of Devi much prior to her marriage with him. The fact that she went to the extent of filing a itself shows that she did not have cordial terms with the appellant No.1 and that she was almost in penury. In this connection, one needs to examine the sequence in which the two Wills were executed. When O.S.No.129 of 1976 filed by Devi was pending, she has executed Will dated 11-3-1980. Under this Will, except a meager extent of Ac.2-00 given in of respondent No.2, nothing of significance was given by the testatrix to her sister and her family. The compromise decree was passed on 25-4-1981. The bitter feelings Devi had towards appellant No.1 even after passing of the compromise decree are reflected in Ex.B-1 letter dated 30-10-1981, which was about six months after passing of the compromise decree. She has complained in that letter addressed to appellant No.1 that he has been appropriating rents of both the houses; that even when she was in hospital and has written letter – Application shall stand disposed.

Judgment :-

Common Judgment:

1. The subject matter and the parties to both these appeals are common. Hence, they are heard and are disposed of together. A.S.No.162 of 1997 is filed by defendant Nos.8 and 9 in O.S.No.35 of 1992 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram.

A.S.No.1040 of 2000 is filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the said suit. Though A.S.No.1040 of 2000 was filed in the year 1996, the same was numbered in the year 2000 after A.S.No.162 of 1997 was numbered. A.S.No.1040 of 2000 is substantive as it was filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4, who claimed to have succeeded to the testamentary succession through Smt.K.Vasantha Devi. As the appellants in A.S.No.162 of 1997 are the purchasers from the appellants in A.S.No.1040 of 2000, it is appropriate to treat A.S.No.1040 of 2000 as the lead case.

Respondent No.1 is the mother of respondent No.2. Both of them filed O.S.No.222 of 1987 on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, which was later re-numbered as O.S.No.35 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram, for possession of plaint A schedule properties to respondent No.1, after dividing and allotting their shares in items 1, 2 and 4 thereof and for possession of whole of item 3 of A schedule properties after ejecting the defendants therefrom, for determination of future profits from the date of suit till possession is delivered, for past profits of Rs.57,750/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

It is the pleaded case of respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs that the predecessor in title - Smt.Vasantha Devi married one Khambam Sri Ramulu Reddy on 08.12.1965; that it was an inter-caste marriage between a Brahmin and a Reddy; that in 1967, the marriage of respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 took place with Kadambari Krishnamurthy; that in the year 1974, Khambam Sri Ramulu Reddy died and that the appellant No.1/defendant No.1 was born on 16.09.1958 to his natural father – Gudla Appala Reddy, and in the year 1962 he was adopted by Khambam Sri Ramulu Reddy prior to his marriage with Smt. Vasantha Devi. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs further pleaded that after the death of her husband, Smt. Vasantha Devi filed O.P.No.14 of 1974 (suit in forma pauperis), which was later numbered as O.S.No.129 of 1976 on the file of learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, for partition against appellant No.1 and Smt.Mahalakshmamma, his sister and Smt. Vara Lakshmi – his daughter. That as Smt.Vasantha Devi could not raise finances for fighting the litigation, she has compromised the dispute leading to passing of a compromise decree dated 23.01.1980 in I.A.No.20 of 1980 in O.S.No.129 of 1976. That later, Smt.Vasantha Devi was admitted to hospital for high blood pressure and after getting discharged from the hospital, appellant No.1 brought her to his house, got Will dated 11.03.1980 executed by her and got the same registered. That respondent No.1 is the only sister of late Smt. Vasantha Devi and she had no other near relatives. That Smt. Vasantha Devi was very affectionate towards respondent Nos.1 and 2 and that Smt. Vasantha Devi nominated respondent No.1 as her nominee and assigned family benefit fund in her account on 01.08.1975. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 further averred that the relationship between late Smt.Vasantha Devi and defendant Nos.1 to 6 was not cordial and therefore, she could not have executed Will, dated 11.03.1980 in a sound disposing state of mind and the appellants and other defendants in collusion with each other have brought the said Will into existence. That Smt. Vasantha Devi executed another Will, dated 20.02.1982, by cancelling Will, dated 11.03.1980, and delivered the same to respondent No.1 on the same day at Dowleswaram and promised to register the same at Rajahmundry when she proposed to visit about fortnight later. That thereafter, Smt. Vasantha Devi was attacked with high blood pressure and became unconscious











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top