T SAVITRI Vs. TETALA RAMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short, but an important issue that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether respondent No. 3, a co-defendant along with respondent No. 2, is entitled to cross-examine the latter. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of this case are summarized hereunder:

(3.) A common written statement was filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 wherein the material allegations in the plaint were denied. Their stand, in brief, is that Late Ammi Reddy committed suicide; that defendant No. 2 has six daughters without sons; that the plaintiff's mother is the eldest daughter of defendant No. 2, defendant No. 4 is his third daughter, defendant No. 3 is his 6th daughter and that his eldest daughter i.e., the plaintiff's mother, was given in marriage to the son of defendant No. 2. It was further averred that at the time of allotment of the plot in the year 1982, Late Ammi Reddy was a sitting M.L.A. and defendant No. 2 was an ex-MLA, both of whom were entitled to allotment of two plots; that as Late Ammi Reddy had business interests in his native place, he was not interested in getting a plot allotted in Hyderabad; and that as defendant No. 2 was elevated as a Judge of the High Court, he expressed his desire to continue to live in Hyderabad after his retirement. It was further averred that to fulfill the wishes of defendant No. 2, Late Ammi Reddy got allotted a plot in his favour and paid sale consideration with a specific understanding that he would construct a building in the ground floor and defendant No. 2 would construct the first floor with his own funds and reside therein along with his family it was further averred that as there was no practice of execution of Wills in Andhra Pradesh at a young age, the unregistered Will dated 9-5-1986 was obviously brought into existence subsequent to the death of Late Ammi Reddy. It is the further case of the defendants that by the time of death of Late Ammi Reddy, he has raised pillars and got the slab laid on the ground floor of the building on 10-7-1986 and died on 17-7-1986; that there was only ten bags of cement and a small quantity of left over steel on the site at that time and that after the death of Late Ammi Reddy, defendant Nos. 1 and 2, through the husband of defendant No. 3, got the walls of the ground floor constructed with their money and also raised the first floor as per the understanding arrived at between them and the plaintiff's family which was reduced into writing under a deed of licence dated 27-11-1986 and that defendant No. 2 had spent money on these constructions with the sale proceeds of his house at Danavaipet, Rajahmundry, the amounts he had at his disposal, the agricultural income from the lands and also with the amounts drawn from his Provident Fund Account. These defendants further pleaded that after construction of the first floor, the second floor was constructed by defendant No. 3 and her husband as per the terms of the said licence deed. It is not necessary to advert to the further averments in the written statement.