SOMULA BHASKAR REDDY Vs. SOMULA RAMACHANDRA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are the Plaintiffs in O.S. No.22 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Allagadda, Cuddapah District. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court in A.S. No.23 of 1991 reversing the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissing the suit, they preferred this appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case are that one Somala China Subba Reddy was addicted to bad habits and vices. At the instance of well wishers of the family pressed him for partition. Somala China Subba Reddy executed a registered deed dated 21-10-1935 marked as Ex.A.l relinquishing his right over the properties in favour of his minor children. By the date of relinquishment deed, he had two sons by name Somala Rama Subba Reddy, Venkata Subba Reddy and the third son Somala Ramachandra Reddy was in the womb of the mother. Since all happened to be minors the properties were kept in the custody of their mother for management. After that, the mother and sons lived together up to 1969 and in that year there was an oral partition between the brothers and the plaint schedule property was given to the mother in lieu of her maintenance. It is also on record that the mother Thimmakka was looked after by third son Ramachandra Reddy throughout. As per the evidence of P.W.I the wife of late Ramasubba Reddy, Thimmakka executed a registered Will bequeathing her properties in favour of the third son Ramachandra Reddy under Ex.B.2 dated 1-1-1974. Thereafter in August, 1974 she died. From the pleadings it is seen that Rama Subba Reddy died ten years back leaving two sons and his wife, Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and P.W.I respectively and Venkata Subba Reddy died four years back leaving his widow - second defendant. The legal representatives of Rama Subba Reddy filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of l/3rd share in the suit schedule properties by contending that at the time of partition this property was given to late Thimmakka for her lifetime in lieu of her maintenance and thereafter it has to revert back to the three sons. Second defendant remained ex parte. First defendant in his written statement stated that the property was given to late Thimmakka at the time of oral partition in lieu of her right to maintenance and after the Act 1956 the limited estate enlarged into absolute estate enabling her to deal with the property in the manner she likes. Hence late Thimmakka is fully empowered to execute the Will Ex.B.21 in his favour and the plaintiffs cannot claim any share in the property. On the above pleadings the Trial Court framed the following issues:

(3.) The third plaintiff, Somula Nagamma the widow of late Ramasubba Reddy was examined as P.W.I and one Tirumala Reddy, a mediator in the oral partition was examined as P.W.2 and the certified copy of relinquishment deed dated 21-10-1935 is marked as Ex.A.l. The legal notice issued by the plaintiffs and the reply received from the first defendant by the plaintiffs were marked as Exs.A-2 and