(1.) The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Anakapalli in O.S.No. 61 of 1984 dated 5-7-1987. The trial Court tried together and disposed of two suits O.S.No.61 of 1984 and 12 of 1987 by the said judgment. As far as this appeal is concerned, it is only filed against judgment and decree in O.S.No.61 of 1984.
(2.) The appeal came to be filed in the following circumstances: One T. Mahalaxamamma filed O.S.No.204 of 1978 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam and subsequently it was transferred to the court of the Subordinate Judge at Anakapalli and renumbered as O.S.No.61 of 1984. Originally the suit was filed for injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. However, pending the suit the plaintiff i.e., Mahalaxamamma died and plaintiffs 2 to 4 came on record as legatees under the Will alleged to have been executed by Smt. Mahalaxamamma. Consequent on the other plaintiffs coming on record, amendment was made to the suit plaint seeking the relief of declaration and possession. It is the case of the original plaintiff that she is owner of all the land situate in Munagapaka village, Anakapalli Taluk, more fully described in the schedule of the properties which are her self-acquired properties and the plaintiff has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. While so, the plaintiff executed a registered Will dated 5-2-1978 bequeathing her properties in favour of the plaintiffs 2 to 5. However, this action of the plaintiff was not liked by the defendant, who is her son and he was bent upon harassing the plaintiff since he has been trying to interfere with the properties belonging to the plaintiff. She filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule properties or to interfere with the crops that were harvested. It was contested by the 1st defendant stating that the 1st plaintiff had not purchased the property out of her own funds and they are all joint family properties acquired by his father Parusuramudu. After filing the suit for permanent injunction the same was amended by order dated 31-8-1994 seeking the relief of declaration and possession on the ground that the suit schedule properties were bequeathed in favour of plaintiffs 2 to 5 and therefore they are entitled for the properties. It was also stated that the first defendant filed suit in O.S.No.70 of 1978 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam for partition of the suit schedule properties and other properties. After the death of the first plaintiff the first defendant did not bring the legatees under the Will dated 21-5-1978. The suit was ultimately dismissed on 17-4-1981. Therefore, the judgment in the suit operates as pes judicata and estoppel.Basing on the respective averments, the trial Court framed the following issues: "
(3.) One of the plaintiffs who was brought on record subsequent to the death of the original plaintiff, namely Malla Satyanarayanamma and her two sons filed another suit in O.S.12 of 1987 seeking declaration and possession in respect of the suit schedule properties on the strength of the settlement deed dated 1-11-1972 (Ex.A-54).