VENUGOPAL REDDIAR DIED Vs. GOPALSAMI REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff in o. S. No. 159 of 1976, District Munsif's Court, Ranipet, are the appellants in this second appeal. That suit was instituted by the deceased plaintiff, praying for a declaration of his title over the suit properties and for recovery of possession. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff was as follows:the father of the deceased plaintiff, one Madhava Reddi and Chinaina Reddi were brothers. Chinaina Reddy died some time in 1922 leaving behind him, his wife kanakarathinammal. Kanakarathinammal had a brother by name Devarajulu and his son is the 1st respondent in this second appeal. THE 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1st respondent. THE suit properties belonged to Chinaina Reddi and on his death, his wife enjoyed the same and while doing so, she stayed with the respondents. As Kanakarathinammal was an illiterate lady, the 1st respondent managed the said properties. Kanakarathinammal died on 27. 3. 1976 and on her death, deceased/plaintiff claimed that he was the only heir entitled to the suit properties as the brother's son of Chinaina Reddi, the original owner of the properties. THE 1st respondent, according to the deceased plaintiff refused to recognize the rights of the plaintiff and also claimed the properties under a Will dated 1. 6. 1966 stated to have been executed by Kanakarathinammal in favour of the 2nd respondent. That will, according to the plaintiff, was a fraudulent one and would not clothe the 2nd respondent with any title to the suit properties. It was under the aforesaid circumstances, the deceased plaintiff laid the suit praying for the reliefs set out earlier.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the respondents, they stated that on 30. 6. 1922, Chinaina Reddi executed a registered will in favour of his wife, Kanakarathinammal, while in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing the suit properties absolutely to her and after the death of chinaina Reddi, she had been in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner. That Kanakarathinammal was an illiterate or. ignorant lady was denied by them. The claim of the deceased plaintiff that he is the sole heir of chinaina Reddi was also disputed by the respondents, who stated that Chinaina reddi had a brother and two sisters and they had children and that they would also be heirs of Chinaina Reddi. The respondents further stated that kanakarathinammal executed a will in favour of her brother Devarajulu and the 1st respondent on 5. 1. 1944 and as the 1st respondent was not attending to the management of the properties and started sqandering them, Kanakarathinammal executed on 1. 6. 1966 a will bequeathing the suit properties to the 2nd respondent and after her death on 27. 3. 1976, the 2nd respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties in her own right. The respondents thus disputed the claim of title put forth by the deceased plaintiff to the suit properties and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) EVEN according to the evidence of the deceased plaintiff, examined as P. W. 1, he is not the sole heir of deceased kanakarathinammal. He had admitted that he had brothers and sisters and that some of them are still alive and if that be so, then his claim that he is the sole heir to Chinaina Reddi and thus entitled to succeed to his properties, cannot be countenanced at all. The Court below have found that there are other heirs than the deceased plaintiff and that the deceased plaintiff cannot therefore claim title to the suit properties as if he was the sole heir. This conclusion of the Courts below is quite correct and does not call for any interference. Consequently, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.