BODLA RAVINDRANATH Vs. CHINTALA VENKATALAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the 2nd defendant, calls in question the legality of the judgment and decree of the 1st Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases-cum-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in decreeing the suit of plaintiff in O. S. No. 128 of 1982 for declaration that she is the only heir, successor of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts as pleaded by plaintiff were that suit schedule property, double storied building bearing M. C. No. 15-2-314 and 315 situated at Kishangunj, Hyderabad originally belongs to one Bodla raghavulu husband of Bodla Jejamma. Their only daughter by name venkatamma predeceased Jejamma and her daughter Sulochana was married to first defendant-Kasinath and they had only daughter, plaintiff. On the death of Sulochana, Kasinath married Danamma and through her he got two sons and one daughter. The appellant-2nd defendant is the eldest son of Kasinath and Danamma. It is the case of the plaintiff that late Jejamma was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property who separated the 1st defendant from her house after the marriage and allowed to live in a separate room with the leave and licence, but Jejamma always used to reside with the plaintiff even after her marriage. Late Jejamma had an attack of paralysis about 2 years prior to her death. On the death of Jejamma, the 1st defendant occupied the suit house forcibly and appropriated all the movables, gold jewellery and valuables. When the plaintiff tried to take possession of the house and movables under the lock and key of the 1st defendant, he is postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Thereupon she issued a lawyer's notice dated 25-3-1981 Ex. A1. In the reply notice, Ex. A2 the 1st defendant set up a false plea of adoption by jejamma and Will Deed executed by her bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of her adopted son, 2nd defendant. In view of the same, plaintiff filed the above suit asserting late Jejamma never adopted 2nd defendant and never executed any Will, therefore, she alone entitled to succeed the property.

(3.) RESISTING the suit claim defendants 1 and 2 filed separate written statement, whereas defendants 3 to 6 who were subsequently added as per the orders dated 20-10-1982 in LA. No. 131 of 1982 remained ex-parte. It is the contention of the defendants that late Jejamma was very religious minded and wanted a male issue in her family to avoid punnama Narakam either natural or adopted. Under her persuasion the 1st defendant married 2nd wife after the death of plaintiffs' mother. Since from the birth of the 2nd defendant late Jejamma was very much attached to him and treated the 2nd defendant as her own son and had an intention to adopt him. At the time of marriage of plaintiff in April, 1968, late Jejamma executed a sale deed in her favour for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/-in respect of house property adjacent to suit schedule property bearing M. C. No. 15-2-316 to 319 situated at Kishangunj, Hyderabad, in fact, no consideration was paid for that document. The 1st defendant got the said document executed in favour of the plaintiff out of affection for the issues of both the wives. Thus, the plaintiff already got one building of late Jejamma, which is a similar value of the suit property, and living with her husband, whereas Jejamma all through lived along with the family members of the defendants in the suit house. She adopted the 2nd defendant on 11-5-1977 and also performed thread marriage according to Hindu rites, which was attended by the plaintiff and her husband and other relatives. On the next day late Jejamma executed a will bequeathing her property to the 2nd defendant. Jejamma died on 23-12-1977 and funeral rites of late Jejamma were performed by the 2nd defendant. She will not wear any gold and silver articles, as the same were stolen away in the year 1974. Police people could not recover the stolen articles in spite of complaint. In view of adoption and also by virtue of Will, the 2nd defendant inherited the suit property in which the plaintiff will not have any right. Therefore, she is not entitled to the relief of declaration and for recovery of possession and the suit is barred by limitation. On these pleadings the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the plaintiff is the heir of late Bodla Jejamma as her great granddaughter and is entitled to the suit property? 2. Whether late Bodla Jejamma has adopted the 2nd defendant as her son on 11-5-1977? 3. Whether late Bodla Jejamma has executed the Will in sound and disposing state of mind and bequeathed her properties in favour of the 2nd defendant? 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? 5. Whether the Court fee paid is sufficient? 6. To what relief?