D VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. D RAMA SEETHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Nos. 7, 19 and 20 on O.S. No. 407 of 1984 on the file of the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada are the appellants herein. The suit was filed by the wife of one Devineni Krishna Rao who is said to have died intestate on 13-03-1984 issueless and the plaintiff being only surviving legal heir. He was said to be hale and healthy by the date of his death. The plaintiff was the second wife, who was married after the death of first wife of Devineni Krishna Rao. The defendants 1 to 8 are the near relatives of the deceased - Devineni Krishna Rao and there was no cordial relationship between the deceased and defendants 1 to 8. The suit schedule properties belong to her. Initially, all the defendants 1 to 8 colluded and claimed that the deceased executed a Will on 15-02-1984 containing dispossessions as mentioned in Ex. B-1 Will. According to the case of the plaintiff, subsequently disputes arose between defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and defendant Nos. 6 to 8 are claiming that late Devineni Krishna Rao executed on a Will on 12-03-1984 and, therefore, they are entitled for the property. It was also alleged that defendant No. 14 claimed that an extent of Ac. 2.66 cents comprised in RS. Nos. 556, 533/1 and 554/2 was alleged to have been sold by Devineni Krishna Rao, which is not true. As the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are claiming title on one side under the Will dated 15-02-1984 (Ex. B-1) and as defendant Nos. 7 and 8 claims to be the beneficiaries under the Will dated 12-03-1984, which is Ex. B-3 and as they are illegal possession of the suit schedule properties, after issuing necessary notice the suit was filed for declaration of exclusive title to the properties and for possession and also for profits.

(2.) Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 contended that late Devineni Krishna Rao executed a Will in their favour on 15-02-1984 making the particulars of the bequest and also giving some property to the plaintiff. They claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. It was also further pleaded that part of the property was acquired and O.P. No. 392 of 1982 was pending for reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in that on the basis of Ex. B-1, the legal representatives were brought on record. They also claim to have pleaded the existence of the Will in O.S. No. 692 of 1984 filed by defendant Nos. 7 and 8 for an injunction. It was not contested either by the plaintiff or the other defendants. Therefore, they pleaded for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Defendant No. 7 filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendant Nos. 6 and 8 contending that late Devineni Krishna Rao has got affection towards them and he expressed his intention several times even some time prior to the death and they have taken care of the deceased - Devineni Krishna Rao. According to him, on 12-03-1984 in the morning hours, the Will Ex. B-3 was executed in a sound and disposing state of mind and on the night on the even date he died. The plaintiff and the other defendants are also aware. Therefore, while disputing the Ex. B-1 Will, they also contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not valid. Defendant No. 14 claimed purchase of the property on 25-01-1984 under agreement from late Devineni Krishna Rao. Pending disposal of the suit, defendant No. 14 died and defendant Nos. 17 and 18 are added as the legal representatives.