YELLAPU VEERRAJU Vs. BEESETTI PEDA APPALARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Introductory episode: It is not in serious controversy that if the status of the deceased original plaintiff in both the suits as daughter of Vegi Veeramma and Kondamma to be disbelieved and if Ex.A-3 and Ex.B-2, the Wills said to have been executed by the said Vegi Veeramma under which the deceased plaintiff and the deceased 1st defendant claimed properties to be disbelieved, then the position would be that neither the deceased plaintiff nor the defendants would be the heirs to succeed to the estate of the deceased Vegi Veeramma by intestate succession. It is peculiar that the defendants in these suits deny the very relationship of Veerraju, the plaintiff in these suits with Vegi Veeramma. In view of the death of the 1st defendant the legal representatives were brought on record. Equally the appellant/plaintiff being no more, appellants 2 to 9 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased appellant/plaintiff in both the Appeals. In view of the fact that findings had been recorded disbelieving Ex.B-2 also, the defendants filed the Cross Objections.

(2.) For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants and also the legal representatives of the plaintiff inasmuch as the legal representatives were brought on record in view of the death of the plaintiff as aforesaid.

(3.) the plaintiff instituted the suit O.S.No.85/84 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram for the relief of partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and allot one such share to her and for possession, rendition of accounts and for future profits. Likewise, O.S.86/84 was filed for declaration of her title over the plaint schedule house and for possession and damages for use and occupation. By virtue of a joint memo, both the suits were tried together and Common Judgment was pronounced. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6, D.W.1 to D.W.3 had been recorded. The learned Judge disbelieved the status of the plaintiff as daughter of the deceased Vegi Veeramma and also disbelieved both Ex.A-3 and Ex.B-2, the respective Wills and ultimately inasmuch as the plaintiff was not successful in establishing her case, the suits were dismissed. As against that, as aforesaid, the Appeals and Cross objections had been preferred.