CHENNUPATI THATHA Vs. KOLLI CHENCHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two C.M.As. are filed against the order, dated 25.02.2012 passed by the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Ongole in I.A. No. 1007 of 2011 in O.S. No. 302 of 2011, but by different parties. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of 4 items of suit schedule property. The 1st defendant (for short 'the defendant') is his elder sister. Defendants 2 to 4 are the officials of the Government. He pleaded that the defendant and her husband, by name Ramadasu, who is none other than their paternal uncle, have fostered him from the childhood and brought him up. Ramadasu is said to have executed a registered Will on 19.02.1992 bequeathing 50% of his self-acquired properties in favour of the plaintiff and the remaining 50% in favour of the defendant. It was also stated that the defendant executed a Will on the same date, bequeathing her properties in favour of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that on the death of Ramadasu on 28.02.1995, he became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and ever since then, he is in possession and enjoyment thereof. Alleging that the defendant has started interfering with his possession over the suit schedule properties, he filed the suit. He also filed I.A. No. 1007 of 2011 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.

(3.) The defendant filed a counter opposing the I.A. She stated that being an ex-serviceman, the plaintiff had committed fraud upon herself and her husband and when it was sensed that he manipulated certain documents, she got the Will said to have been executed by her cancelled. She further stated that after the death of her husband, the properties were transferred in her name, so much so that she was also issued pattadar pass books and title deeds. She contended that after she cancelled the Will, the plaintiff has fabricated an agreement of sale and filed O.S. No. 147 of 2003 in the Court Junior Civil Judge, Parchur for the relief of specific performance and that it has since been illiteracy and old age, not only the plaintiff but also his son started harassing her and at one point of time, she was inflicted bleeding injuries and the son of the plaintiff was convicted for it in C.C. No. 94 of 2003 by the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parchur.