PULAPAKA LALITHA Vs. AVASARALA ATCHUTA RANGANAYAKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 74 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate judge, Kakinada. The suit was filed for declaration of the plaintiff's right to the plaint A, B and C schedule properties, for partition of the A and C schedule properties into four equal shares and allotment of one share to the plaintiff to divide the B schedule property into four shares and allot to the plaintiff one share. A direction was also sought to direct the 2nd defendant to pay the plaintiff her share in all the amounts collected by the 2nd defendant from the deferidancs with interest,

(2.) One Avasarala Acchanna Pantulu, here in after called 'Pantulu', was an employee of the 14th defendant - Standard Vaccum Oil Company Ltd., now called ESSO. He died en 29-5-1960 at Kakinsda undivided with his son, the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are the children of Pantulu by his deceased first: wife, Pantulu's mother is the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant is the Second wife of Pantulu. The 15th defendant is the plaintiff's junior paternal uncle. The 11th defendant is the father of the 2nd defendant and also the son-in-law of the 1st defendant. About the year 1944, Pantulu's first wife died leaving a minor daughter, the plaintiff and a son, the 3rd defendant. Shortly thereafter Pantulu married the 2nd defendant, who is his sister's daughter. According to the plaint Pantulu died possessed of the plaint A,B and C schedule properties. The plaint B Schedule properties are the ancestral properties In which Pantulu had a half share. The C schedule consisted of movables. Defendants 4 to 8 are the Insurance Companies wherein Pantulu had effected insurance. Defendants. 9 to 13 are impleaded. as they are debtors to to the estate of Pantulu. Defsndants 4 to 14 are added to obtain a declaration and for establishment of the plaintiff's right in their presence and enable the plaintiff to recover her share from them.

(3.) The 1st defendant, the mother of Pantulu, admitted the relationship and prayed that a decree might be passed In her favour for her share. The 2nd defendant, who Is the widow of Pantulu and the step-mother of the plaintiff and 3rd defendant filed a written statement, She contended inter alia that the plaintiff and defendants I and 3 had no title or interest in items 1 to 6 of the plaint A schedule properties which are insurance policies. Late Pantuiu nominated his wife, the 2nd defendant as the person to whom the money should be paid in the event of his death and the 2nd defendant alone is entitled to the amounts under the policies and the policy amounts dc not form part of the estate of Pantulu, Pantulu died as Manager of the 4th defendant company. He was drawing a salary of Rs, 300/- per month. The premium in respect of the insuarence policies was paid out of his salary. During the life time of Pantulu, he had a Provident Fund Account in the company. The 2nd defendant WES nominated In respect of the Provident Fund. The 2nd defendant also is entitled to the death benefit payment and other sums payable by the 14th defendant as she has been designated as a beneficiary. The plaintiff and others, therefore, have no claim to these amounts. It was pleaded that after the death of Pantulu in May, 1960, all the movabie properties were divided into three equal shares between the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 each getting one share. The written statement elaborately detailed the case of the 2nd defendant regarding the movables and the B schedule properties At the time of the division of the movables, it was agreed by the 1st defendant that she need not be given any share in the movables. The suit is filed at the instance of A. Subba Rao. who is added as 15th defendant,