Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Venkata Ramana, J.
Kandula Radha Kumari and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Kumari Narra Naga Yellamani Ratna Teja – Respondent
A.S. Nos. 1789 of 2002 and 181 of 2003
Decided On : 12-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : T.S. Anand and V. Balaram
For the Respondent: V. Balaram and T.S. Anand
Point of law: object of the family arrangement is to protect the family from long-drawn litigation or perpetual strifes, which mar the unity and solidarity of the family and create hatred and bad blood between the various members of the family.
Headnote:
Indian Evidence Act. - Section 68 - Indian Succession Act 1925 - Sections 61 and 63 - Ancestral properties - Denied a justifiable share in family properties by her maternal grandmother - Grandmother was not successful during her lifetime and will of grandfather prevailed to give away due share in his estate to his granddaughter - A La conflict of filial bondage and economic interests in a Hindu Family is mirrored - What are properties available for partition - Whether registered Will alleged to have had been executed by late, is true and valid - Whether Will and registered on alleged to have had been executed by late Sri Kandula, is true, valid and if it can be considered to bind plaintiff in presence of defence based on - Whether plaintiff is entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties and to allot 1/3rd hare out of it –
Finding of the court : They are either his ancestral properties or his acquisitions - Death of Sri late Kandula - Court contend that plaintiff cannot maintain or pursue suit for partition against them, in as much as there are no other properties available for partition - In respect of its registration on there is only testimony of 1st defendant and no other witness, who identified before concerned sub registrar, was examined at trial. No explanation is offered for omission by defendants - Respondents, that 1st defendant during her lifetime executed her last will and testament bequeathing her properties - Plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd in all these properties - Plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed in respect of plaint 'A' schedule properties and that she is not entitled for any share in plaint 'B' schedule properties for want of proof -
Result :Court point is answered
JUDGMENT :
M. Venkata Ramana, J.
1. It is said, "Blood is thicker than water". It is not always so. This case illustrates such an unfortunate exception of a granddaughter, who lost her mother within a few days of her birth, who is denied a justifiable share in the family properties by her maternal grandmother. Yet, the grandmother was not successful during her lifetime and the will of the grandfather prevailed to give away due share in his estate to his granddaughter. A La conflict of filial bondage and economic interests in a Hindu Family is mirrored.
2. A.S. No. 1789 of 2002 is instituted by the defendants and whereas A.S. No. 181 of 2003 is instituted by the plaintiff. The decree and judgment in O.S. No. 86 of 1994 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, dated 23.04.2002, are subject matter in these two appeals.
3. The first appellant (first defendant) in A.S. No. 1789 of 2002 died on 05.04.2008. A memo was filed on behalf of the respondent (the plaintiff) on 12.06.2012 in this appeal bringing this fact to the notice of this Court while further informing that the respondent (plaintiff) and the second appellant (second defendant)" alone have been her legal heirs and since they are already on record, it is requested to recognize them as legal heirs of the first appellant.
4. The parties as arrayed in the suit shall be referred to hereinafter as the plaintiff and the defendants, for convenience.
5. Plaint 'A' schedule consists of immovable properties. Plaint 'B' schedule relates to movables including cash balances in certain bank accounts, gold jewellery and silver ware. The plaint 'A' schedule shall be referred to hereinafter as 'the suit properties' and whereas plaint ‘B' schedule shall be referred to hereinafter as 'the suit movables', for convenience.
6. The parties to these appeals are closely related. Sri Kandula Sanjeeva Rao, was the husband of the first defendant. The second defendant and Smt. Venkata Ratna Matha Kumari, who is the mother of the plaintiff, are their daughters. Sri Kandula Sanjeeva Rao died on 08.04.1994. The first defendant died on 05.04.2008. Mother of the plaintiff Smt. Ratna Matha died on 24.05.1981 when the plaintiff was an infant (minor). Defendants 3 and 4 are the children of the second defendant.
7. The suit was originally instituted by the plaintiff as a minor, represented by her father Sri N.V. Lakshman Kumar. She was declared a major in the trial Court itself on attaining majority.
8. The plaint schedule properties undisputedly belonged to Sri Kandula Sanjeeva Rao.
9. It is desirable to consider the case set out by the plaintiff as well as the defendants in their respective pleadings before embarking upon consideration of the claim set forth by the parties at the trial.
10. The plaintiff stated in her plaint that her mother and the second defendant alone were the issues to Sri Kandula Sanjeeva Rao and the first defendant and that Sri Kandula Sanjeeva Rao, died intestate possessed of the plaint schedule properties. She further stated in the plaint that after death of Sri Kandula Sanjeeva Rao, she along with the defendants 1 and 2, was in joint possession and enjoyment of these properties all being legal heirs of equal degree and therefore, she is entitled for 1/3rd share in these properties. She further alleged in the plaint that the defendants 1 and 2 though elder to her, taking advantage of her minority as well as innocence seriously contemplated to deprive her legitimate share in the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff further alleged in the plaint that Sri Kandula Sanjeeva Rao, was physically and mentally ill atleast for about five years prior to his death, who during his lifetime was showering affection on the plaintiff she being his eldest grandchild. Though demanded on her behalf by her father, according to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 d
