KAPPARA KOTAIAH Vs. KAPPARA VENKATA SESHA LALITHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the 2nd defendant in O.s. Nc. 179 of 1961 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif. Ongole against the judgment and decree of the Courts below decrees- ing the suit of the plaintiff-1st respondent for declaration that the alienation made by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant on 21-4-1952 under Ex.4 was not binding on the plaintiff's rights after the life time of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff's husband late RamaKrishnaiah's father, Narayana and the 1st defendant's husband late Raghavaiah were uterine brothers, being the sons of the one Ramakrishnaish. The said Ramakrishnaiah and the 2nd defendant's father Subbaiah were brothers, but they had earlier divided. The plaintiff averred that her father-in-law. Narayana, died undivided from his brother, Raghavaiah. about 45 years ago, i.e., in or about 1915 or 1916. Thereafter, the plaintiff's husband and Raghavaiah continued to enjoy the family properties Jointly till the year 1928, when Raghavaiah also died leaving behind his widow, the 1st defendant. According to the plaintiff, her husband got the properties by survivorship. The 1st defendant was a minor by the date of the death of her husband. Then, her father set up a claim to the properties. At that stage, a family arrangement was arrived at which is evidenced by Ex. . -I dated 17-12-1928 in and by which plaint A - Schedule properties were allotted to Ramakrishnaiah absolutely and the B-Schedule properties were allotted to the 1st defendant for enjoyment during her life time, The plaintiff's husband died on 11-6-1940 intestate without any Issues. Upto this stage the facts are not in dispute.

(2.) It appears that the 1st defendant settled the 1st Item of the plaint schedule properties on the 2nd defendant under Ex-A, 4 dated 21-4-1952. She further alienated items 2 and 3 in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 under sale-deeds, Ex. A-5 and A-6 dated 21-4-1952. The 3rd defendant, in his turn, sold the 2nd" item to the 5th defendant. The 5th defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives- defendants 6 to 9 were brought on record and the 7th defendant was alleged to be In the possession of the said item. The plaintiff, thereupon, brought this suit for a declaration that the alienations made by the 5th defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 4 under Ex A-4, A-5 and A-6 on 21-4-1952 did not bind the plaintiff after the life time of the 1st defendant,

(3.) The 1st defendant contended that her father-in law, Narayana, became divided about 10 years prior to his death from his brother, Raghavaiah, though there was no division by metes and bounds as the properties were in possession of lessees. The plaintiff's father-in- law, therefore, did not get the properties by survivorship. She denied knowledge of the family arrangement entered into on 17-12-1928. She also raised a plea that the said arrangement, if any entered into by her father would not bind her. She further set up the will alleged to have been executed by her husband. Raghavaiah. on 18-2-1928 in and by which she claimed the entire properties covered by B Schedule. She, therefore, claimed that she became absolutely entitled to the properties both by virtue of the will of Raghavaiah and also under the Hindu Succession Act. Another plea was raised that the suit was barred by limitation. The other defendants 5 and 7 also raised pleas similar to those raised by the 1st defendant. The trial court framed the following issues and addi- tional Issues: