M.S. BHAVANI W/O D SURESH BABU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS AND D. SURSH BABU S/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT. 52 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/OF NO. 74 DORCHESTOR AVENUE WARWICK, PERTH CITY WEST AUSTRALIA-6024 Vs. M.S. RAGHUNANDAN S/O LATE M. SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 49

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants No. 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 6341/2006, who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1845/2008 are before this Court in these two appeals claiming to be aggrieved by the common judgment and decree dated 09.09.2011 passed in the said suits. The appeal in RFA No. 1888/2011 is against the judgment in O.S. No 6341/2006 while RFA No. 1889/2011 is against the judgment in O.S. No. 1845/2008. The suit in O.S. No. 6341/2006 is filed by SRI. M.S. Raghunandan against his mother Smt. Nirmala Murthy, sister Dr. (Smt). M.S. Bhavani and brother -in -law SRI. D.C. Suresh Babu seeking declaration that his mother and sister are disentitled to execute any sale deed in favour of the brother -in -law and for the other reliefs. The sister Dr (Smt) M.S. Bhavani and son -in -law Sri D. Suresh Babu have filed the suit in O.S. No. 1845/2008 for ejectment against the mother Smt. Nirmala Murthy terming her as a licensee. The suit in O.S. No. 6341/2006 filed by Sri. M.S. Raghunandan (son) for declaration has been decreed in part, while the suit in O.S. No. 1845/2008 filed by Dr. (Smt) M.S. Bhavani (daughter) and Sri Suresh Babu (son -in -law) has been dismissed. The daughter and son -in -law who have been unsuccessful in both the suits have filed these two appeals.

(2.) THE parties would be referred to by their names for the purpose of convenience and clarity as they have been arrayed differently in the two suits. The result of the suit for declaration would have a bearing on the suit for ejectment, as such the facts are noticed in that order.

(3.) THE intention of the father as expressed is that the mother shall be the sole legal heir of the property and she will have every right and authority to sell the property to any other third person other than her own children or mortgage or lease the house or totally to bequeath it to anybody who takes care of her in her last days. It is contended that such situation has not arisen, as she is being taken care of by Sri. Raghunandan. The daughter Dr. Bhavani and her husband are staying in Australia so they are not taking care. The decision has been left to Smt. Nirmala Murthy and none has the right to question her and make unjust claims. Sri. Raghunandan also avers that the WILL provides for sale of the house and the manner in which the amount is to be divided between the son and daughter. In that regard, it is provided that out of the sale proceeds a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - for Sri Raghunandan and Rs. 50,000/ - for grandson Sameera is to be set apart and the remaining sale proceeds to be divided equally between Sri. Raghunandan and Dr. M.S. Bhavani. It is contended that the property was to be sold with the cooperation of the children and not to sell it to them.