GODI JAYARAMI REDDY Vs. SIDDAMURTHY JAYARAMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Subordinate Judge, Proddatur, by his judgment and decree dated 22-12-1986 in O.S.No.27 of 1980 held that the respondents erein are entitled to 1/3rd share in the properties held by one Bijivemula Subbireddy. Assailing this judgment and decree, the defendants in the suit, filed this appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case are that one Bijivemula Subbireddy had a daughter by name, Pitchamma, and a son by name Sesha Reddy. Both the daughter and son were married during the lifetime of Subbireddy. Pitchamma was married to one Siddamurthy Rami Reddy. They had no issues. Sesha Reddy had a daughter by name Lakshumamma. Sesha Reddy predeceased his father, Subbi Reddy. Since, Subbireddy held vast properties, he brought his son-in-law, Siddamurthy Ramireddy and his daughter to his house to assist him in managing the properties. Admittedly, no children were born to the daughter and son- in-law. Subbi Reddy had executed a registered will on 21-1-1920 for the management of the properties after his death. As per the terms of the will, the testator's daughter and son-in-law should adopt a boy and give him in marriage to his grand daughter Lakshumamma, namely, his son's daughter, and convey the entire property to the grand daughter. If by chance the adoption is not materialised or even if the marriage with granddaughter does not take place, then the property shall be divided in the ratio of 1:3 i.e., one-third of the property shall go to his son-in-law and daughter and two-third shall go to his son's daughter. Under the will, Rami Reddy is to act as administrator of the properties till Lakshmamma attained majority. Rami Reddy also had to look after the testator's wife, his daughter in law (son's wife) and his sister (testator's). If they are not prepared to live jointly he must make necessary provision for their maintenance during their lifetime. The will also states that if there is no kartha to any branch of the family, the properties devolved on the said branch shall be enjoyed by the kartha of the second branch. For what purpose, the testator used the word 'Adhyakshulu' in the will, is not known. But having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that he is referring to the kartha of the family. While Pitchamma wanted to adopt Godi Venkat Reddy as their son, Siddamurthy Rami Reddy did not agree for the proposal and he left the house in 1924 and started living separately at Papireddipalli a hamlet of Rampadu, after marrying one Subbamma for the second time. Since, monogamy was not practiced at that time perhaps no divorce might have been taken by him from Pitchamma. Through Subbamma, Rami Reddy had two daughters Peddabayamma, Chinnabyamma and two sons, Rami Reddy and Jayarami Reddy. Subsequently Rami Reddy died around 1940. Pitchamma celebrated the marriage of Lakshumamma with her foster son Godi Venkata Reddy in 1926. Within three years thereafter Venkata Reddy seemed to have died of throat cancer and Lakshmamma gave birth to Godi Jayarami Reddy posthumously. It is also on record that Pitchamma made some improvements to the properties held by her father and died in the year 1953. Thereafter Lakshumamma managed the properties till her death in 1970. After her death, her son Godi Jayarami Reddy started managing the properties after he left parents-in-laws house. Siddamurthy Rami Reddy acquired properties on his own prior to his death in Rampadu village. It is also on record that the eldest son of Rami Reddy joined Government service, second son became a lawyer in the year 1962. Naturally Rami Reddy having learnt the law of Hindu Succession, developed an idea to claim a share in the property of the testator and he started creating some record as if the members of the two branches i.e., the children of Siddamurthy Rami Reddy along with Pitchamma and Lakshmumma and her children were living in common at Chennavaram and there was no severance in status to contend that they being children of the co-legatee under the will, they are joint owners of the properties and they are entitled for a share in the properties.

(3.) After coming of A.P. Land (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 into force in 1975, Godi Jayarami Reddy/Defendant in the suit filed a declaration u/s. 6 of the Act, claiming that the entire property belongs to him and his sons and the Primary Tribunal held that his family holds the land in excess of the ceiling limit. When Defendant No.1 carried the matter in appeal, Rami Reddy and his brother Jayarami Reddy filed an application before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal contending that they are the co-owners and the defendant had no right to claim entire land to their exclusion and they are entitled for a share in the property. That application seemed to have been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. The efforts made by the plaintiffs to get themselves impleaded in the land ceiling proceedings did not yield fruitful results.