KOMIREDDY VENKATA NARASAMMA Vs. KONDAREDDY NARASIMHA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in O. S. No. 62 of 1989, in the Court of district Munsif, Kothapeta, filed this second appeal. Her suit was dismissed by the trial Court, through judgment and decree dated 2810-1996. Thereupon, she filed A. S. No. 82 of 1996, in the Court of senior Civil Judge, Razole. The appeal was also dismissed on 24-102000. The dispute related to the devolution of property, held by one chewuri Veera Swamy. His wife is Seshamma. They did not have any issues. The appellant, who was the daughter of Seshamma's brother, was brought up by them. Her marriage was also performed by that couple. Veera Swamy executed a deed of settlement, dated 23. 1. 1961, marked as Ex. A-2, whereunder, he reserved life interest in himself, in respect of Ac. 0-60 cents of land at Narendrapuram Village, and created vested remainder, in favour of the appellant.

(2.) VEERA Swamy executed a will, dated 19-3-1963, marked as Ex. A-1, in respect of Ac. 0-12 cents of land in R. S. No. 252, covered by a thatched house. Under this will, life interest was created in favour of his wife, Seshamma, who was impleaded in the suit, as first defendant, and after her death, the property was to devolve absolutely, in favour of the appellant. After the death of Veera Swamy, his wife, Seshamma, executed a deed of settlement dated 11-111983, marked as Ex. B-1, in favour of the sole respondent herein (defendant No. 2 in the suit), covering the suit schedule property, and some other items. Seshamma retained life interest in her favour, and created vested remainder in favour of the sole respondent. On coming to know about this development, the appellant got issued a notice, dated 30-11-1983, marked as Ex. A-3, and the respondent replied through Ex. A-4.

(3.) THE suit was filed for the relief of declaration that the appellant has vested remainder in the suit property, and that the same would come into effect, on the death of Seshamma. Seshamma died during the pendency of the suit, and no legal representatives were brought on record. The suit was contested by the sole respondent herein, who got the suit schedule property, through Ex. B-1.