SRIPATI PANDITHARADHYULU SARABA SALVALINGAM Vs. MUDIGONDA LINGAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit by reversioners. Defendants 4 and 5 are the appellants before me and the property in dispute in this appeal is item No. 3 of theA schedule attached to the plaint.( The suit (O. S. No. 12 of 1952 on the file of the Sub Court, Tenali, was filed by the 1st respondent for a declaration that he and defendants 1 to 3 are the nearest reversioners to the estate of Mudigonda Seshamma and lingamurthi for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and allotment of one share to each of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and other ancillary reliefs as to profits.

(2.) One Mudigonda Mallayya was possessed of properties described in the A schedule. He had a son by name veerabhadrayya, & a grandson, Lingamurthi. The three of them were living as members of an undivided family. Under Ex. A-5, dated 3-1-1929 Mallayya gifted an extent of 91 cents of wet land in favour of his minor grandson Lingamurthi represented by his mother Seshamma, as the guardian. Mallayya died leaving surviving his son veerabhadrayya and his grandson Lingamurthy. Lingamurthy pre-deceased veerabhadrayya. On 2-7-1948 veerabhadrayya executed a will (Ex. A-1) bequeating his entire property absolutely to his widow Seshamma. Seshamma in her turn executed a gift deed on 31-5-1950 under Ex. B 10 in favour of defendants 4 to 5, the present appellants. The fourth defendand is the daughter of Seshammas sister. The 5th defendant is the husband of the 4th defendant to both of whom Seshamma is alleged to have been greatly attached. Seshamma also left a will dated 11-4-1951 and marked as Ex. B-1, bequeathing her sister, the 10th defendant for life and after her death to the 4th defendant with absolute rights. Seshamma devised her moveable properties absolutely to her sister the 10th defendant. The plaintiff in the action challenged among other things the truth of Seshammas will marked as Ex. B-1.

(3.) The two courts below found that the plaint genealogy was true, and if so the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are the nearest reversioners to the estate of Seshamma. That finding is not challenged before me. The learned Subordinate judge held that E. B-1 the alleged will of Seshamma was not true and on that footing gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff with respect to his share in the plaint A schedule properties and also the item in C and D schedules excepting the item 3 of A schedule covered by Ex. B-10, which has been found to be true and valid.