KARRI RAMESAM DIED Vs. KARRI NOOKALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these appeals arise out of O.S.No.67 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, they are being disposed of by a common Judgment. For the sake of convenience I would hereinafter refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

(2.) Plaintiffs, who are the appellants in A.S.No.859 of 1988 and respondents in A.S.No.2561 of 1986 filed the suit against the respondents in A.S.No.859 of 1988, as indigent persons, seeking recovery of Rs.40,000/- towards the value of the gold ornaments of 25 tolas belonging to the first plaintiff, Rs.5,000/- towards the value of Sare Samans of 1st plaintiff, Rs.5,000/- towards provision for residence of the plaintiffs and past and future maintenance at Rs.1,000/- per month from May, 1980 with a charge over the properties in the plaint A and B schedules.

(3.) The case, in brief, of the plaintiffs is that defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of 4th defendant and they are all members of a Hindu joint family possessing the properties specified in the plaint A and B schedules. Though defendants 1 to 3 are divided in mess, they are cultivating the lands belonging to the family jointly. After the death of his wife, 4th defendant is living in the houses of defendants 1 to 3 in turn for a period of four months in a year in the house of each defendants 1 to 3. 1st defendant, who married Siva Laxmi begot two daughters through her and had subsequent to the death of, Siva Laxmi married the 1st plaintiff as per caste custom, and begot the 2nd plaintiff. At the time of her marriage with the 1st defendant, 1st plaintiff was given 10 tolas of gold ornaments, described in the plaint 'C' schedule, besides Sare Samans worth about Rs.5,000/-. After the birth of the 2nd plaintiff, 1st defendant started illtreating the 1st plaintiff and drove her out of the house, after removing all her gold ornaments and retaining her Sare Samans. Hence the suit. 1st defendant filed his written statement admitting the relationship between him and the other defendants. He denied that he and other defendants are members of a joint family and alleged that the properties shown in the plaint A and B schedules are the separate and self-acquired properties of his father, the 4th defendant and that after the death of his wife Siva Laxmi, he brought the 1st plaintiff in Maru Manumu form (2nd marriage), without undergoing the ceremonies of marriage and gave her ten tolas of gold Teega, but 1st plaintiff stayed with him only for one month and later deserted him. He denied the paternity of 2nd plaintiff and his liability to maintain the plaintiffs. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a common written statement supporting the case of the 1st defendant and contending that there are no joint family properties between them and defendant 1 and 4. 4th defendant filed a separate written statement contending that all the properties shown in the plaint A and B schedules are his self-acquired properties. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as 9 issues for trial. In support of their case plaintiffs examined five witnesses including 1st plaintiff and marked Exs.A1 to A7. In support of their case defendants examined seven witnesses including defendants 1 and 4 and marked Exs.B1 to B76. The trial Court held that as there is no evidence to show that the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and her 1st husband was dissolved by a decree of divorce, her marriage with the 1st defendant is void though she (1st plaintiff) and 1st defendant lived together as husband and wife and begot the 2nd plaintiff, and that all the defendants are members of a Hindu joint family, and that properties covered by Exs.B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29 sale deeds standing in the name of 1st defendant only are the joint family properties and the rest of the items mentioned in the schedules A and B are not the joint family properties and are the self-acquired properties of 4th defendant, and that 1st plaintiff is only entitled to recover Rs.40,000/- from 1st defendant towards the value of the gold ornaments but is not entitled to seek maintenance or separate residence, and that 2nd plaintiff is entitled to Rs.1,000/- towards past maintenance and Rs.400/- towards provision for residence and Rs.250/- per month towards future maintenance besides Rs.100/- per month towards provision for residence with a charge over the properties covered by Exs.B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29 and passed a decree accordingly. Aggrieved by the dismissal of her claim for maintenance and separate residence, 1st plaintiff preferred A.S.No.859 of 1988 and aggrieved by the trial Court's decree creating a charge over the properties covered by Exs.B6 to B8, B12 to B14 and B27 to B29, 4th defendant preferred A.S.No.2561 of 1986.