IMPORTANT POINT
The plaintiff must prove his own title to succeed in a suit for declaration of title, as established by the will's provisions.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’] is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 24.04.2000, in O.S. No. 65 of 1994 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration of plaintiff’s title to the plaint schedule property, for possession of the same, for past profits to a tune of Rs.9,000/- and for future profits from defendants 1 to 3.

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. 65 of 1994, are as under:

Plaint A schedule property was originally belonged to one Devarakonda Suramma. It was her Sthridhana property. She had only one daughter by name Kameswari. Kameswari was married to one K. Seshachalam. Kameswari and Seshachalam begot two sons namely Venkata Anjaneya Seshachala Bhaskara Rao, who is the husband of first defendant, and Khambhampati Venkata Rama Krishna Prabhakara Rao, who is the 4th defendant herein. Suramma adopted the husband of first defendant i.e. Bhaskara Rao. The plaintiff is the son of 4th defendant.

Late Suramma executed a registered will dated 16.04.1967 and she bequeathed her landed property to her daughter Kameswari.

Plaint B schedule property is the part of plaint A schedule property. She bequeathed B schedule property in favour of her adopted son Bhaskar Rao and the other half of the plaint A schedule property, which is separately shown as C schedule, was bequeathed to the 4th defendant for their life time and vested remainder with absolute rights was given to male progeny. It was her last will. Bhaskara Rao and 4th defendant took plaint B and C schedule properties respectively after demise of Suramma. Kameswari took the landed property.

Bhaskara Rao, who is the husband of first defendant died issueless in the year 1984. The dominant intention of testatrix is to give the property to the male progeny of late Bhaskara Rao and 4th defendant. Since Bhaskara Rao had no issues and since the plaintiff is the male progeny of the 4th defendant and since there is no other male descendent, the B schedule property devolves on the plaintiff herein.

The 4th defendant is continuing in possession of plaint C schedule property as he is life estate holder for the same. Since first defendant’s husband died and since she had no issues and since the plaintiff is residing elsewhere on account of the employment of his father, first defendant was continued in possession of plaint B schedule property with an understanding to vacate the premises as and when required by the plaintiff.

While so, first defendant began letting out portions of plaint B schedule property to defendants 2 and 3 on monthly rent of Rs.500/- each. Since the defendants 2 and 3 are in actual possession of the property, they are also impleaded. In the month of November, 1993, plaintiff demanded the first defendant to vacate the plaint B schedule premises and to deliver vacant possession, but the first defendant did not comply with the demand. Hence, the plaintiff got issued a registered notice on 31.12.1993, first defendant received the same and sent reply dated 06.01.1994 with false averments. The original will lies with the first defendant. Plaintiff claims profits for use and occupation of the premises of plaint B schedule property.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement denying the contents of the plaint and further contended as under:

Suramma bequeathed the house in two distinct portions to the husband of first defendant and to the 4th defendant without the right of alienation. It was not life interest. The property was bequeathed with absolute rights without right of alienation.

The fact that the testatrix bequeathed Eastern ground floor portion and Western first floor portion in favour o