ALLURL BALA SATYA KRISHNA KUMARI Vs. ALLURI VARALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellents in this second appeal, which arises out of their suit for maintenance instituted against the respondents herein and their putative father Alluri Ramachandra Venkata Krishna Rao. impleaded as the first defendent In the suit, In the following circumstances:-

(2.) Plaintiffs claimed to be the illegitimate sons of the first defendant, having been born respectively on 10-6-1960 and 26-8-1963. Their mother was the permanent concubine of the first defendant. Second defendant Is the wife of the first defendant while the other defendants are their children. After the birth of the first plaintiff, the second defendant and the father of the first defendant made the first defendant to execute a settlsmen' deed on 30-6-61 (Ex. B-9) in favour of defendants 3 to 7, In respect of plaint A Schedule properties and Item I of the B Schedule. The first defendant alone contln ed In possession of these properties. He execused an agreement on 4-3-1964 agreeing tc give 80 cents of the land to the plaintiff's mother and also pay maintenance to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 50/- each and to provide for their education. Since M:y 1967 the first defendant stopped visiting the plaintiff's mocher. He executed again another nominal gift deed In favour of the 8th defendant on 5-7-1967 (Ex. B-8) In respect of plaint B schedule prooerty in order to defeat and delay the claims of ths plaintiffs for maintenn:e. Plaintiffs claimed that the firs: defe >dint Is bound to maintain them, who are his Illegitimate children. The first defendant's family gets an annual Income of s, 40,000/- Hence each of the plaintiffs claim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month and at least Rs 200/- per annum towards residence.

(3.) Defendants 3 and 4 contested the suit stating that the settlement deeds are true and valid and are binding on the plainiffs and that they (defendants) are not liable for the suit claim. They also denied that the plaintiff's mother was the exclusive concubine of the first defendant and plaintiffs were born to them. The income on the properties was not Rs. 40,000/- per year as alleged by the plaintiffs, but only Rs 3,500/-to Rs.4,000/- per year. The other defendants filed a separate written statement contending that second defendant has right to be maintained by the other defendants from out of the income of the family properties. In other respects they adopted the written statements of the defendants 3 and 4.