PUTTY ARAVIND KUMAR Vs. PUTTY ASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 126 of 2011 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District, filed this appeal, feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit. The 1st respondent is the brother of the appellant and the 2nd respondent is their father. The appellant filed the suit for the relief of declaration to the effect that he is the owner of the suit schedule premises, bearing Nos. 3-6-702 and 703, Street No. 11, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, to the extent of half portion and for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with his possession over the property in premises, bearing No. 3-6-703, admeasuring 255 square yards.

(2.) The appellant pleaded that the entire suit schedule property was held by their grandfather Sri P. Venkata Ratnam, and during his life time, P.V. Ratnam executed a Will, dated 04.06.1959, creating life estate in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of his wife - P. Venkata Ratnamma, and vested remainder in his two grandsons i.e. the appellant and the 1st respondent. He further stated that his grandmother - Venkata Ratnamma filed O.S. No. 307 of 1983 in the Court of VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against v. Devidhar Rao, and others, and in that suit, reference was made to Will, dated 04.06.1959.

(3.) The appellant stated that Venkata Ratnamma died in 1998 and while he is residing in premises No. 3-6-703, the 1st respondent is residing in the other premises, bearing No. 3-6-702. He stated that the respondents in collusion with each other were trying to evict him, on the basis that in a partition that was effected between the 2nd respondent and his mother - Venkata Ratnamma, the premises in 3-6-703, is fell to the share of the 2nd respondent, and the other premises were retained by his mother - Venkata Ratnamma, and that she, in turn, executed a registered Will, dated 4.10.1986, bequeathing her share of the property in favour of the 1st respondent. Countering the basis pleaded by the respondents, the appellant prayed for a decree of declaration and injunction.