IMPORTANT POINT
Law does not regard as uncertain event of a person attaining a given age or of death of somebody beyond which his enjoyment is postponed.

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.—This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.12 of 1994, dated 31.01.2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District.

2. This appeal arises out of the said suit, which has a chequered history. After a long protracted trial, appeal, remand etc., the first appeal has come up for final hearing before this Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, as this is a first appeal, the parties are arrayed and described as plaintiff and defendants only.

4. A tragedy of great propositions is the genesis of the suit and the claim therein. One Sri D.V.S. Tirupati Rao, his wife and three daughters hailing from a well known family committed suicide by setting themselves on fire on 21.02.1994. This mass suicide committed by the members of Tirupati Rao family led to the present claim. Just before the death, the deceased daughters of D.V.S. Tirupati Rao wrote three documents (Exs.B.1 to B.3) by which they purported to give their properties to the deities mentioned therein. Soon after this mass death by suicide, the plaintiff in the suit claiming to be a close relative wanted to perform the necessary last rights of the five people, who died in the tragic circumstances in February, 1994. The first defendant objected to the same.

5. Thereafter began the claims and counter claims resulting in the suit. The suit was initially filed by Damera Madhava Vidhyardhi against the first defendant-R. Siva Kumar for a declaration that he is the close and sole legal heir to the properties of late D.V.S. Tirupati Rao. Later, the plaint underwent changes and amendments were carried out. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (hereinafter called TTD) was added as a second defendant. Defendants 3 to 26 who are the subsequent purchasers of the property after the initial decree dated 15.11.1996 were added as parties along with the State of Andhra Pradesh who was the custodian of the properties for some time. The plaint was also amended for a declaration that the plaintiff was the close and sole legal heir of the properties of late D.V.S. Tirupati Rao, his wife and three daughters.

6. The essential contest in this case is presently by the TTD, who is the second defendant and by the subsequent purchasers of the property.

7. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that he had close family connections with the members of the deceased family. The plaintiff is the son of D.V. Ranga Rayanim varu, the brother of late D.V.S. Tirupati Rao. The said Sri D.V.S. Tirupati Rao, Sri D. Rama Rayanim varu and D.V. Ranga Rayanim varu were the three sons of one Sri D. Kodanda Ramasway Nayanim varu. The three sons of D. Kodanda Rama Swamy Nayanim varu partitioned the properties in 1951 and D.V.S. Tirupati Rao had acquired the plaint schedule properties from and out of the said partition. Therefore, after the death of Tirupati Rao and his family, the plaintiff filed the suit stating that they had no other legal heir left and that as the brothers son, he is the sole legal heir to their properties.

8. The first defendant filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff is not at all related to D.V.S. Tirupati Rao. He did not claim the right of the properties and on the other hand, his intention is that the last wishes and desires of the deceased people should be carried out and the property should devolve on the parties named in the documents executed by the deceased just before the death.

9. The second defendant/TTD filed a written statement which is also subsequently amended. Initially Exs.B.1 to B.3 documents were described as Wills. Later, the title and description of the documents were changed to a dedication in favour of a deity. Based on these three documents, the second defendant claimed to be the owner. This is the gist of the written statement and amended statement filed.

10. After the suit was initially decreed on 15.11.1996 and before the appeal was filed by the contesting second defendant,