KOTA NAGARATNAMMA Vs. KOPPARRU PRASADA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letters patent appeal has been filed by defendants 1 to 6 in the suit. Respondent was plaintiff. The parties shall be referred as defendants and plaintiff in this judgment. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants on the following factual assertions.

(2.) That the plaint schedule described in 'A' and 'B' schedule of the plaint belonged to late Namburu Kantayya who died January, 1943. On his death the properties devoled on his widow Mahalaxmamma who had life interest in the properties. The plaintiff was the sister of late Kantayya and she was the only heir to the estate of late Kantayya on the deat of his wife Mahalaxmamma. K.Prasada Rao, son of the plaintiff filed a suit being O.S.No.9 of 1046 before Sub-Court, Guntur against Mahalaxmamma on the basis of a pro- note executed by her in favour of the father of Prasada Rao. A personal decree was claimed in that suit. The suit was dismissed, but in appeal A.S.No.442 / 46 a personal decree was passed by the District Court, Guntur decreeing that Mahalaxmamma had to pay the plaintiff an amount of Rs.2,414/- with interest . Said decree was executed in E.P.No. 73/48 by the Sub- Court Tenali. The decree holder attached the life interest of Mahalaxmamma in items 1 and 2 of 'A' schedule and the said interest was purchased by Kota Bapanaiah husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 6. A Kabela had been issued in favour of Kota Bapanaiah for the limited interest of Mahalaxmamma in items 1 and 2 of the suit property. It was further case of the sale was held in Sub - Court on 6-12-48 when Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was not in force. It was futher contended in the plaint that after the death of Kota Bapanaiah the defendants 2 to 6 being children of Bapanaiah were entitled to remain in possession of suit property till death of Mahalaxmamma and with the death of Mahalaxmamma the life interest which was sold by her came to an end. Since the plaintiffs were the heirs to late Kantayya and Mahalaxmamma died on 13-3- 72 the plaintiffs were entitled to recovery of possession of the two items being item 1 and 2 of the suit property. It was contended that Mahalaxmamma could not claim any title in the property but had only life interest in the property and the decree passed by District Judge, Guntur in A.S.No. 442/46 was not against the estate of Kantayya. This was disputed by defendants and as many as 16 issues and 3 additional issues were framed by the trial court and finally the suit was decreed with respect to items 1 and 2 of 'A' schedule property. Thereupon, an appeal was filed being A.S.No.326/1977 which was decided by the learned Single Judge on 9th November, 1994. In this Letters patent Appeal also we are only concerned with items 1 and 2of the 'A' schedule property. Certain issues were also decided in favour of the defendants by the trial court, cross objections were also filed in the appeal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal as well as the cross - objections. Therefore this Letters Patent appeal has been filed only by defendants 1 to 6 plaintiffs have not challenged the decree either of the trial court or of the appellate court.

(3.) Three questions were framed by the learned Single Judge for deciding the appeal. However, we are concerned only with one question i.e., question No.3 which reads as under :