TADIKONDA SEETHA MAHALAXMAMMA Vs. MANDADAPU DAIVA PRASD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. She filed a suit for maintenance and for a charge on the plaint schedule properties, and other reliefs.

(2.) The trial Court decreed the suit awarding maintenance in a sum of Rs. 50/- per mensem and created charge over the plaint A scheduled properties and also her right to residence in item 4 of the plaint A schedule properties for her life time. The trial Court also decreed for recovery of the value of the B schedule properties. On appeal at the instance of the respondents herein and defendants 3 and 4, the appellate Court reversed the decree with regard to recovery of the plaint B schedule movable properties and also set aside the decree creating a charge on items 4 to 6 of the plaint A schedule properties. As against the decree to the extent of reversal by the appellate Court, the above second appeal has been filed.

(3.) It is not necessary to detail al' the facts. To decide the short but important point, the facts in nut shell are as follows ; Her husband is one Gopaiah and defendants 1 and 2 are his brothers. Third defendant is the grandson of Gopaiah's sister. 4th defendant is the son of 3rd defendant. It is not necessary to detail other defendents due to the fact that they allowed the decree of the trial Court to become final. Gopaiah died on 26-5-1973. In the partition between Gopaiah and defendents 1 and 2, he got one acre of land and acquired some more properties. Gopaiah during his life time. gifted away item 8 of the plaint A schedule property to the 2nd defendant on 24-6-1971. On 17-6-1972 he gifted items 2 to 6 of the plaint A schedule to the 3rd and 4th defendants.