The property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or father-in-law shall devolve upon the heirs of her husband, as per Sec. 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal, under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/defendant No.1 challenging the Decree and Judgment, dtd. 12/3/2007, in O.S. No.33 of 2001 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 6 in the said Suit. The plaintiffs filed cross objections for claiming B schedule property.

2. The Plaintiffs filed the above said suit for a) declaration that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs to the person and property of Hymavathi and for recovery of possession of plaint A schedule properties and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, his men and followers from in any way interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and

b) to direct the defendants 2 and 3 to ascertain the amounts payable on account of death of Hymavathi and to pay the said amount to the plaintiffs with interest and c) for costs.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.33 of 2001, are as under:

i) Plaintiffs are the daughters of late Korlipara Narasimha Rao through his first wife Kusuma Kumari. Kusuma Kumari died in the year 1965 when the plaintiffs were at tender age. It necessitated the plaintiffs' father to bring home a mother to his children and married one Y.Hymavathi on 16/3/1968. By virtue of the marriage, Hindu custom and usage, the plaintiffs have become the children of Y.Hymavathi and vice versa. Smt Y.Hymavathi did not choose to have any more children. Plaintiffs, their father and Hymavathi lived together in one house. Hymavathi totally accepted the plaintiffs as her own daughters by heart, soul and deeds and gave all her love and affection and the plaintiffs reciprocated the same. ii) It is further stated that late Narasimha Rao died on 28/7/1980, intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and Hymavathi as his legal heirs. During his life time, he purchased some movable and immovable properties either in his own name or in the name of Hymavathi with the income derived from his salary, he also adorned Hymavathi with gold ornaments of his first wife.

iii) It is further stated that Hymavathi received all retirement-cum- death benefits of late Narasimha Rao i.e., father of the plaintiffs, as the mother of the plaintiffs. Even after the death of Narasimha Rao, the plaintiffs and Hymavathi lived together till the marriages of the plaintiffs. Hymavathi herself performed the marriages of the plaintiffs as mother of the plaintiffs. Even after the plaintiffs' marriage Hymavathi maintained the same relationship, love and affection towards the plaintiffs and she was frequently visiting and staying with plaintiffs.

iv) Hymavathi worked as a Chemistry Lecturer in the second defendant college. She entered the names of the plaintiffs as her daughters in all the nominations wherever required and thereby bequeathing her retirement-cum-death benefits to the plaintiffs. It is further stated that late Hymavathi by virtue of her occupation, pre- occupation and employment was residing at Guntur. It seems that Hymavathi felt lonely after the marriages of the plaintiffs and she also fell sick. During which time i.e., 1996-97, she came in contact with the first defendant herein as an acquaintee. As the first defendant is a doctor, late Hymavathi used to take medical advice and treatment from him. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs, first defendant made Hymavathi to believe that he is her well-wisher. He used to look after the petty affairs of the plaintiffs and Hymavathi such as payment of telephone bills, house tax on behalf of Hymavathi and the plaintiffs. On 26/10/2000 Hymavathi died due to cancer.

v) Having come to know that Hymavathi is having properties and having come to know of her intention to give the properties to the plainti