DEVARAPU NIRAKARAMMA Vs. DEVARAPU ARUNA REKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in the suit is the petitioner in this revision. The suit is filed for partition of A -Schedule and B -Schedule properties into two equal half shares and to deliver one such half share to the plaintiff. The first defendant in the suit is the daughter of the brother of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, she and her brother by name Sri Sudhakar are the only persons who are entitled to succeed to the self acquired estate of their father. The first defendant is given in marriage to the son of the plaintiff and then she became the daughter -in -law of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the father of the first defendant and her own brother Sri Sudhakar died on 30.08.2009. It is stated in the plaint that the second defendant was in possession of plaint A -Schedule and B -Schedule properties as a concubine of the said Sri Sudhakar. She was initially impleaded as the second defendant to the suit, but however, a memo was filed by the plaintiff that she is not pressing the suit as against the second defendant and the suit was dismissed accordingly as against the second defendant. The first defendant is not contesting the suit. In the process, a decree is likely to be obtained by the plaintiff behind the back of the second defendant and in execution thereof, the plaintiff and her daughter -in -law i.e. the first defendant will have one half share each of the plaintiff A and B Schedule properties, thus leaving the second defendant in lurch. The case of the second defendant obviously is that Sri Sudhakar married her after the death of his wife and the mother of the first defendant. If, Sri Sudhakar has truly married the second defendant after his first wife died, the second defendant becomes the widow of Sri Sudhakar and consequently, she would acquire a right to succeed to the estate of Sri Sudhakar. Therefore, she is an absolutely proper and necessary party to the suit. Hence, she filed I.A. No. 446 of 2011 praying the Court to set -aside the dismissal order of the suit against her. If the said application is not allowed by the Court below, the disastrous consequence that will befall on the second defendant in the suit is that she would be driven out of A and B Schedule properties by the plaintiff with the tacit understanding of the first defendant who is none other than her own daughter -in -law. It is to avoid this mischief, precisely the application has been allowed by the Court below.

(2.) I , see no legal infirmity committed by the Court below for me to exercise revisional jurisdiction and on the other hand, I am of the opinion that the Court below has passed a very correct order for rendering justice to the second defendant, lest, the second defendant would suffer grave and irreparable injury by the actions of the plaintiff and her daughter in law who is the first defendant in the suit.