PADI NARAYANA REDDY Vs. PADI VENKATA NARSAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Kareemnagar, in O.S. No. 2 of 1960, a suit filed by the widow of one Raghavendra Reddy for maintenance. The 1st defendant is the plaintiff's husband's brother, the 2nd defendant is the 1st defendant's wife. Defendants 3 to 5 are the 1st defendant's sons. The plaintiff sued as a pauper claiming maintenance at Rs. 150 per mensem and arrears of maintenance at the same rate for 12 years prior to suit. It is the plaintiff's case that her late husband died undivided from his brother, the 1st defendant and that she is entitled to maintenance from the joint family properties which she set out in the plaint A Schedule and further alleged that the 1st defendant neglected and refused to maintain her. She also pleaded that the income from the family properties was Rs. 25,000 per annum apart from Rs. 60,000 cash in deposit in the Central Bank, Warangal.

(2.) The defendants set up the case that the allegations of neglect and refusal to maintain the plaintiff were not true, that the plaintiff was being maintained till about 15 days prior to suit and that the plaintiff was instigated by her brother and others to harass the defendants. Another reason for the suit was that the plaintiff and her brother Jagannatha Reddy wanted to perform the marriage of the son of the said Jagannatha Reddy with the daughter of the 1st defendant to which the 1st defendant did not agree and so the suit was instituted with a vengeful motive. Ever since the death of her husband in Fasli 1328 the defendant had been maintaining the plaintiff for about 40 years and the plaintiff was also drawing " Rusum Deshmukhi " from the Government till the Abolition of Jagirs in Fasli 1359. The defendants were also prepared to maintain her as they maintained her before. It was also pleaded that all the properties set out in the plaint A Schedule were not joint family properties as they included also the self-acquired properties of the 1st defendant and also the properties of others. They set out the joint family properties in Schedule B to the written statement and pleaded that the average gross income was only Rs. 2,700 per annum and that the plaintiff did not require more than Rs. .30 per month for her maintenance which the defendants alleged they were prepared to pay from the date of the institution of the suit.

(3.) On these pleadings the issues framed for trial were these : "(1) At what rate a month is the plaintiff entitled on account of future maintenance ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to past maintenance and if found to be entitled at what rate a month and for which period ? (3) What are the properties given in the plaint schedules liable for charge ? (4) To what relief is plaintiff entitled ?"