JONNALA VEERAREDDY Vs. MARREDDY SEETHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent here is an executrix entitled to probate of the will executed by one Jonnala Ramireddy. She filed an application before the District Court, Guntur for the issue of a probate. This was opposed on various grounds only one of which is necessary to set out for the purpose of this appeal. The third respondent in the petition contended that she was not appointed as executrix under the will and was therefore not entitled to the issue of a probate. This contention was nagatived and the petition was allowed with costs. The third respondent has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The array of parties is referred to as in the court below : The testator, Rami Reddy, died leaving a brother, the second respondent and two sisters, the petitioner and the eleventh respondent. Respondents 3 to 5 are the sons of the second respondent. The first respondent is the testators widow. The sixth respondent is the son of the petitioner and respondents 7 to 10 are his children. The third respondent who is the natural son of the second defendant was also the adopted son of Rami Reddy. Under the will, Rami Reddy referred to the fact that he had taken the third respondent in adoption. He also stated that he had brought up on Shivanagendramkrishna Reddy. He directed that his elder sister Seethamma (the petitioner) should get the marriage of the adopted son (respondent 3) and Shivanagendramma performed, incurring expenses for the marriage from out of the income of the property. He bequeathed the entire A Schedule property and all his moveables in favour of his adopted son (respondent 3) and Shivanagedramma. He also bequeathed his B Schedule property in favour of his wife (respondent 1) with life interest and after her death to be enjoyed by his adopted son and his wife. The C Schedule property was directed to be managed on his behalf by the testators brothers son the fourth respondent. As the fourth respondent was a minor, the C Schedule property was directed to be managed on his behalf by the testators brother-in-law, Korapola Venkata Reddy and after the legatee attained majority the property should be handed over to him with the income. His sister, Seethamma, the petitioner should pay Rupees 1,116 to his brothers daughter Subbamma. He bequeathed D Schedule property in favour of his sisters son Ramakrishna Reddy (respondent 6) and E. Schedule property to Ramakrishna Reddys son Shivasranga Reddy (respondent 7)and F Schedule property to Shivasatyanarayna Reddy (respondent 8). He directed his sister Seethamma, the petitioner, to purchase Ac. 2-00 dry land and give it to Shivaprasad Reddy, (respondent 9). The petitioner should also collect all the amounts due to him under the mortgages, promissory notes and also the Fixed Deposit of Rs. 25,000 in the Andhra Bank. She should give a sum of Rs. 1,500 to Korrapolu Venkata Reddy for the purpose of bullock cart and other cultivation expenses out of the income form the estate. She should also give five hundred rupees with of jewels to his niece Saraswati. He gave a life estate in G. Schedule property to his sister, Narayanamma (respondent 11) with vested remainder to his brothers son Ranga Reddy (respondent 4). In a latter part of the will, he testator says that his sister is entitled to purchase Ac. 2-00 to be given to R-9 and Ac. 2-00 to be taken by herself at any place of her choice. The will concludes by saying that the petitioner should manage his property, maintain the accounts accurately and then hand over the property together with the entire income to his adopted son (R-3) as soon as he attained majority.

(3.) The question for consideration is whether having regard to the terms of the above will it can be said that the petitioner is appointed as executrix.