DUVVARI LAKSHMINARASIMHAM Vs. GARMELLA RAJESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by defendants 1 to 3, against the decrees and Judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Amalpuram. The suiut, which has given rise to this appeal, was instiuted by one Rajeswari for recovering possession of the plaint "A" schedule lands and a house site, and for directing the defendants to render an account of the profits for the years 1942 to 1949.The plaintiff is one of the three daughters of one Akella Subrahmanyam, the other two daughters being Vyaghreswari and Sugunavati. This Subrahmanvam executed a will on 15-9-1938, bequeathing 10 acres and 78 cents of his land to his wife Subbamma with absolute rights, and also conferring a power upon the latter to take one of his maternal grandsons in adoption. The testator died three months later.On 6-3-1942, Subbamma executed a Will in respect of theproperties she got from the will of her husband and also what she acquired with the income from the properties given to her by the husband. Under this document,. she gave a life estate to the plaintiff of 5 acres and 20 cents of land and a house site with a vested remainder to her male issue. We are not concerned with other dispositions in the will.Under the terms of this Will, the 1st defendant, the husband of the ledest daughter Vyaghreswari was to be in possession of this property disposed of under the will for a period of two years after the lifetime of the testatrix, manage them to the benefit of the legatees, arrange for the marriage of the last daughter Suganavati, who at the time of the will unmarried, and to do such other things as were directed by the testatrix, under the will. Subbamma died on 11-3-1942.

(2.) It is alleged in the plaint that Subsequent to the death of Subbamma, the 1st defendant continued to manage the properties by mutual understanding. Later on, when requested by the plaintiff to put her in posession of the properties bequeathed to her under the will of her mother, the 1st defendant refused to do so, and thus collected plaintiff to seek the reliefs mentioned above in the suit. The 2nd defendant is the son of Vyaghreswari who is married to the 1st defendant, the 3rd defendant being his step-brother.In the plaint, it was recited that none of the material grandsons of Subramaniyam was adopted by the latters widow i.e., the plaintiffs mother.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants on various grounds, that the 2nd defendant was adopted by Subbamma in accordance with the wishes of Subrahmanyam, that the will of Subbamma was inoperative for the reason that the adoption of the 2nd defendant by Subbamma had operated to divest her of all the properties which she got by way of bequest from her husband under the will, and that in any evnet, the defendants are not liable to account for the profits, as under the terms of thewill of Subbamma, the 1st defendant could nt be made liable for the income from these properties, and that lastly, the suit was barred by limitation so far as the accounting is concerned.