VALLURY MANGARAJU Vs. VALLURY VARAHALAMMA ALIAS AMMANNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Chief Justice.-These are applications under Article 133 of the Constitution of India for leave to prefer appeals to the Supreme Court of India against an order of this Court.

(2.) The respondent was married to late Valluri Subbarao in or about the year 1930. The applicant was the second wife of the said Subbarao. After the death of Subbarao, the respondent filed O.S. No. 78 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Rajahmundry, for partition and for recovery of possession of a half share in the plaint schedule properties. The ist defendant contended that the plaintiff was deprived of her rights to inherit her husband's properties by reason of her unchastity and that late Subbarao had executed a will, dated 19th May, 1948 bequeathing the entire properties to the applicant and others.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge, on a consideration of the evidence, held that the applicant failed to make out that the will was executed by Subbarao in a sound disposing state of mind and decreed the suit as prayed for. In decreeing the suit provision was made for the maintenance of Subbarao's daughters and for the marriage expenses of those daughters. The applicant preferred an appeal against the decree to the High Court and it is numbered as A.S. No. 434 of 1954. Pending the suit a Receiver was appointed who collected a large amount, discharged debts, paid half the amount due to the 1st defendant to her and deposited a lakh of rupees in Court out of which admittedly about Rs. 90,000 represent the profits due to the plaintiff's share. Pending the appeal she filed two applications, one for directions for continuing the Receiver and the other for stay of further proceedings pending the appeal. The applications came before Bhimasankaram, J., who by order, dated 17th February, 1955, directed Rs. 60,000 to be kept in Court and the balance to be paid over to the plaintiff. The learned Judge also directed the Receiver appointed by the first Court to continue for the purpose of collecting the outstandings and directed him to hand over to the plaintiff her share of the property in his possession on her furnishing security for a sum of Rs. 13,000. The 1st defendant preferred two appeals against the said order and we have dismissed them.