YARAKARAJU APPAMMA Vs. NAGARAJU SUBBAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common facts and questions of law arise in these two appeals.As a matter of fact the courts below disposed of the matter by a common Judgment between the parties inter se. Therefore, these two appeals are being disposed of by a common Judgment.

(2.) The facts in these cases are not in dispute. One Venkayamma was the 2nd wife of one Yarakaraju Sarraju. He had two wives. The second wife was Venkayamma. The respondent herein is the daughter through his first wife. Yarakaraju Satyanarayana Raju is the son of Venkayamma (born to Sarraju). Venkayamma died on-March 23, 1966 intestate.She possessed of 54 cents of land situated in Konitivada in Bhimavaram taluk of West Godavari District. Satyanarayana Raju her son succeeded as a heir to the estate of his mother. He too died unmarried on March 16, 1966. Thereafter, the dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant is the aunt of Satyanarayana Raju and sister of his mother Venkayamma. According to her, the property initially belonged to their mother one Kanakayamma. kanakayamma got this property under a gift deed Ex.A.17 dated March 24, 1929, executed by her husband.

(3.) It is the case of the appellant that Satyanarayana Raju executed a will Ex.A. 1 on March 16,1966, in favour of the appellant, and that the appellant and her husband even during the lifetime of Satyanarayana Raju and Venkayamma, were in possession and management of the property on their behalf. After the demise of Satyanarayana Raju she succeeded as a legatee and they were in possession, their possession was being interdicted by the respondent- wihout any manner of right. Thus she filed O.S.No.389/66 for an injunction restraining the respondent from interdicting with her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.As a counter blast, the respondent has come forward in her suit O.S.No.613/66 contending inter alia, that after the demise of her step brother Satyanarayana Raju, she succeeded as a heir to his estate, and therefore she acquired title and she claimed on that basis for declaration of her title. Though initially she resisted that she was to be in possession, an interim injunction was issued by the trial court restraining her from interfering with the possession of the appellant, then she filed an application to amend the plaint seeking for possession. Thus in the suit, she claimed for declaration that she is the heir of Satyanarayana Raju and for possession of the plaint schedule property. The trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent in O.S.No.613/66 and dismissed the suit of the appellant in O.S.No.389/66 holding that the will Ex. A.I, is not a genuine one.