V M SUBRAMANIA REDDY (DIED) Vs. NAGARATHINAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants before the courts below are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit in O.S. No. 622 of 1994 was filed by Nagarathinammal, first respondent herein praying for a declaration of her title to the suit properties and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property or from putting up any further construction over the suit property. The suit property consists of various items which were classified as item Nos. 1 to 8 in the plaint schedule. The trial court as well as the first appellate Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for in the suit, which gave rise to filing of the present second appeal.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants' before the trial court.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, she is the legally wedded wife of L. Kuppusamy Reddy @ Kuppa Reddy. The first defendant in the suit namely Subramania Reddy is the sister's son of Kuppa Reddy. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the first defendant vowed to see that the plaintiff and her husband quarrel with each other to gain advantage out of it and to grab the suit properties owned by Kuppa Reddy. The first defendant succeed in his attempt, with the result, the plaintiff and her husband got separated due to domestic quarrel and misunderstanding. Taking advantage of such situation, the first defendant created fabricated documents to assert a claim over the suit properties. After separation, the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No. 478 of 1977 on the file of District Munsif, Poonamallee claiming maintenance against her husband Kuppa Reddy and also to create a charge over item Nos. 2 to 8 of the suit property owned by Kuppa Reddy to satisfy the claim for maintenance. The said suit was decreed against which, Kuppa Reddy filed A.S. No. 46 of 1979 before the District Court, Chengalpat. The first appeal was also dismissed as against which S.A. No. 170 of 1980 was filed before this Court. The Second Appeal was also dismissed by this Court, with the result, the plaintiff succeeded in getting the documents fabricated by the first defendant declared null and void and also obtained an order creating charge over item Nos. 2 to 8 of the suit proceedings. The Plaintiff also thereafter filed Execution Petition and the properties were subjected to attachment and brought for sale in public auction. In order to avoid sale of the suit properties, Kuppa Reddy remitted the maintenance amount on various dates and saved the suit properties from being auctioned. According to plaintiff, her husband Kuppa Reddy was not keeping well for about four years and eventually on 19.01.1994 he died due to illness. The plaintiff learnt that the first defendant, during the funeral ceremony of Kuppa Reddy asserted a right over the suit properties on the basis of a Will dated 03.02.1992 said to have been executed by the deceased Kuppa Reddy in favour of the second defendant, who is the son of the first defendant. Immediately, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 04.02.1994 calling upon the first defendant and others not to lay any claim over the suit properties. In response, the first defendant sent a reply notice on 19.02.1994 stating that the suit properties were bequeathed in favour of the second respondent by executing a registered Will dated 03.02.1992. The Plaintiff sent a rejoinder on 13.04.1994 repudiating the execution of the Will dated 03.02.1992 by the deceased Kuppa Reddy inasmuch as he was not in a sound and disposing state of mind and energy atleast for four years prior to death and that the execution of the Will is shrouded by mystery. It was also stated that the deceased Kuppa Reddy died intestate and the alleged Will dated 03.02.1992 will not bind her in any manner. In such circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the aforesaid relief.