SRIRANGAM VENKATARATNAM Vs. PERAMBADUR BULLEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate litigation between close relatives and has been fought out at all stages with a zeal and tenacity worthy of a better cause. In particular, this Second Appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the decree of the lower appellate court which, in my opinion, is manifestly equitable and just. A bare outline of the rival cases and a pointed reference court and the actual terms of the decree passed by it, will show how utterly devoid of merits this Second Appeal is. The dispute relates to a small house constructed over an area of about twenty square feet. Although the 1st plaintiff (who gave evidence as P. W. 3) went to the length of denying even the relationship between her and the 1st defendant (who gave evidence as D. W. 6), in truth the 1st plaintiff is no other than the sister of the 1st defendants mother. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the sons of the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant is the husband of the 1 defendant. The 1st plaintiffs husband was one Lakshmi Narasinga Rao (who will be referred to for the sake of brevity as "Rao") and he died somewhere in the year 195 2. This suit was brought by the 1st plaintiff in the year 1957 for possession of the plaint B schedule property which consists of the site referred to above and the superstructure, and for other ancillary reliefs.

(2.) The case of the 1st plaintiff was that her husband, Rao was the owner of the suit house which formed part of the main house and the site also belonged to him. The suit house was constructed by Rao on the site belonging to him and the house consisted of a tiled shed with one room, verandah and a latrine. By a will dated 22-6-1950 (Ex. B. 1) Rao bequeathed his properties which included the suit house and the site, to the 1st plaintiff. The 1st defendant, who site, to the 1st plaintiff . The 1st defendant, who according to the 1st plaintiff is an utter stranger and not even related to her, took the B schedule house on lease in the beginning of 1952 on a monthly rent of Rs. 5.00, paid rent for a few months and then defaulted, and therefore the suit was instituted for recovery of possession of the house and for profits.

(3.) The 1st defendants case on the other hand was that the 1st plaintiff is no other than her mothers sister ; that the 1st plaintiff and her husband the late Rao had brought her up and that Rao had told her to build a small house for herself in the vacant site at the northwestern corner of the main building in which he and his family were residing ; that he had told her that the site belonged to the family of some goldsmiths which had become extinct ; that Rao had not only encouraged her to build the house but had actively assisted her by obtaining a licence from the Municipality for the construction of the house ; that she (the 1st defendant ) got the house constructed at a cost of Rs. 600.00 and performed "Gruhapravesam" sometime towards the end of 1950, and the function was attended by Rao and his wife, the 1st plaintiff, as also by several friends and relations of both the parties, as also D. Ws. 3 and 4 ; that Rao had acknowledged the right of the 1st defendant to the site in the presence of several persons and she had come to regard the site as a gift made by Rao, and that on account of certain misunderstandings between herself and the 1st plaintiff after the death of Rao, the present suit had been instituted by the 1st plaintiff .