ARAVALA SURYAM Vs. ARAVALA LAKSHMINARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Second Appeal, the appellants challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. The appellants are defendant Nos. 3,4,5, and 11 to 13 in O.S.No.34 of 1979 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srikakulam. The suit was filed by the sole respondent for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties. It was averred in the plaint that one late A. Venkataramana, a widower, and who was the cousin of the husband of the plaintiff, was living with them for several years since his wife died and they had no children. It was their case that during his lifetime, the said Venkataramana executed a registered settlement deed on 25.3.1975 (E .A-1) settling the suit schedule properties upon the plaintiff and ultimately he died on 16.3.1976. Though the plaintiff was entitled to the ownership and enjoyment of the said properties by virtue of the settlement deed, the first defendant had trespassed into Item No.1 and defendants 2 to 6 trespassed into Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties in the year 1976. She made attempts to recover the possession and also approached the police. Since she could not recover the possession, she filed the suit.The defendants 1,6,7, and 9 remained ex parte.Defendants 4 and 5 filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 2 and 3.

(2.) The claim of the defendants was that Mr. Venkataramana, who executed Ex.A-1 and defendant No.2 by name Mr. A. Lakshminarayana, who is also the husband of defendant No.3, were brothers, and the properties between them remained undivided. The suit schedule properties, being the joint family properties, could not have been settled by one of the co-parceners. They have also pleaded that the document Ex.A-1 was forged and brought into existence to lay false claim on the suit schedule properties.

(3.) The trial Court framed necessary issues mainly touching upon two important aspects i.e. whether late Venkataramana and his brother-defendant No.2 constituted the joint family and whether Ex .A-1 was forged. On behalf of plaintiff, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and documents Exs. A-1 to A-35 were marked. On behalf of the defendants DWs.1 to 6 were examined and documents B-1 to B-48 were marked.