A void marriage precludes one from claiming rights as a legal heir under succession laws and the court's appellate powers are limited to substantial questions of law.

JUDGMENT:

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 26.09.2024, passed by the Principal District Judge, Jagtial, in A.S.No.17 of 2023 whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 13.03.2023, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial, in O.S.No.176 of 2016 was confirmed.

2. The appellant herein is plaintiff and respondent herein is defendant, before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the plaint are that plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.176 of 2016, seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of land to an extent 133.33 sq.yards in Sy.No.342 and 343, situated at Dharoor village of Jagtial Mandal (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule property’); that wife of plaintiff namely, Vemula @ Mamidala Susheela, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) is the owner and possessor of schedule property having purchased the same under registered sale deed document No.1589 of 2004; that due to ill health, the deceased died on 19.06.2016, leaving behind the plaintiff as her only legal heir; that defendant who is the mother of the deceased denied title of the plaintiff over the schedule property and interfered with his possession on 05.07.2016. Plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of defendants, however, defendant is interfering with the possession of the plaintiff frequently. Hence, the suit.

4. Defendant filed written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint, that defendant is the owner and possessor of the schedule property having acquired the same from her deceased daughter through registered will deed, dated 17.06.2016 and that in the year 2004 the deceased purchased schedule property under registered sale deed bearing document No.1589/2004, dated 03.09.2004 and her name was also mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings No.B/2476/2008, dated 05.12.2009 and after death of the deceased, the defendant is in peaceful possession and continuous enjoyment of the schedule property.

5. Defendant further averred that originally plaintiff is native of Laxmidevipalli village of Sarangapur mandal and used to work as auto driver and was residing at Krishnanagar, Jagtial; that marriage of the deceased was performed with one Ankam Satyanarayana, about 20 years back, however, due to some differences they obtained divorce, thereafter, the deceased did not marry any person and was living alone. It is further averred that the deceased during her life time worked as ANM (Outsource) in Primary Health Centre at Kathalapur village, where plaintiff developed close intimacy and friendship with the deceased and after the death of the deceased, plaintiff with mala fide intention to grab the schedule property alleged that the deceased was his wife, but in fact there is no marital relationship between plaintiff and the deceased; that plaintiff married one Sujatha and they were blessed with two daughters. It is further averred that the deceased during her life time, bequeathed her property in favour of the defendant by executing a will deed dated 17.06.2016, out of love and affection as the defendant rendered her services till her death and that after death of the deceased, defendant got right and title over the schedule property and that deceased got no legal heirs except defendant, therefore, question of succession of schedule property by plaintiff does not arise. Hence, prayed to dism