V.VENKATARAMANA REDDY Vs. V. MANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O .S.No.130 of 1981 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati was filed by the 1st appellant, who died during the pendency of the appeal and his son is impleaded as the 2nd appellant. The suit was filed against the Defendants 1 to 9 and it was contested by Defendants Nos.2, 3 and 4. Defendants Nos.1, 5 to 9 remained ex parte. The appeal is also being contested by Respondents/Defendants Nos.2, 3 and 4 only.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff, as averred in the plaint, is as under: - The plaintiff is the son of one late Krishnaswamy Reddy, through his second wife Smt. Venkataramanamma. Late V. Ramaswamy Reddy was his son, through his first wife Smt. Thulasamma, who died 40 years ago and subsequently he married the mother of the plaintiff, who died in 1970. The said Krishnaswamy Reddy had a brother Sreenivasulu Reddy, who constituted a joint Hindu Family and divided their properties under a registered partition deed dt. 21.5.1945, under which the father of plaintiff, late Krishnaswamy Reddy acquired valuable properties. Apart from that, Krishnaswamy Reddy also acquired the plaint schedule properties from out of his income from his Government job, and also from the income of the joint family properties. As Krishnaswamy Reddy was a Government servant, he got the sale deeds in the name of his elder son Ramaswamy Reddy, who was a native Doctor. Krishnaswamy Reddy died in 1965, and therefore, the plaintiff and Ramaswamy Reddy were entitled to half share each. The 1st defendant is the first wife of the said Ramaswamy Reddy, who died in 1969 issueless. Therefore, his undivided half share devolved upon the 1st defendant. However, the 2nd defendant is proclaiming that she is the second wife of Ramaswamy Reddy and made illegal alienations in favour the Defendants 3 to 9, which are absolutely void and cannot bind the plaintiff. Further, even if the 2nd defendant is the 2nd wife of Ramaswamy Reddy still she cannot claim any right over the properties of Ramaswamy Reddy, in view of the fact that her marriage with Ramaswamy Reddy is void and bigamous in the eye of law. The defendants 3 to 9, knowing fully well all these facts, have purchased the properties from the 2nd defendant, who has no title at all. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to his half share.