MUDDASANI SAROJANA Vs. MUDDASANI VENKATA NARSAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Third defendant in O.S.No.81 of 1981 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar, filed this Second Appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 30.12.1993, passed by the learned 1 Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, in A.S.No.13 of 1990.

(2.) The first respondent (who is since dead and represented by his successors) filed the suit, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and mesne profits thereof. The case of the first respondent is as under: His father father late Veeraiah and one Sri Balaiah were the sons of one Sri Rajaiah. Yashoda s the wife of Balaiah. They did not have any issues, and Balaiah died in the year 1950 or so. Yashoda was given the suit schedule property in a fami y settlement, with life interest in her. She died some time in the year 198 . The limited share of Yashoda enlarged into absolute estate, by operation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short 'the Act') and since she did not have any Class-I heirs, the property devolved upon the sister of her husband, by name Buchamma. He purchased the suit schedule property from Buchamma, through the sale deed, dated 25.04.1981, marked as Ex.A.1 and possession of the property was delivered to him. Th appellant, her father-in-law and her husband, who are impleadcd as defendants 1 and 2 respectively, have dispossessed him from the land on 12.06.1981. He urged that the appellant and other defendants in the suit have no right, interest or enforceable claim vis-a-vis the suit schedule property.

(3.) The suit was mainly contested by the appellant herein. She pleaded that the partition between Balaiah, husband of Yashoda, on the one hand, and Veraiah, father of the first respondent, on the other, took place, during their life time and that the property held by Balaiah devolved upon his wife- Yashoda, on his death. She contended that after the death of Balaiah, Yashoda had fostered her, by performing the necessary ceremonies. It was her case that she was treated, as if she is the natural daughter, and that her marriage was also performed by Yashoda. She ultimately contended that the suit schedule property was settled upon her by Yashoda. It was her case that the sale deed-Ex.A.1 was a fictitious and sham document. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment, dated 21.05.1990. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent filed A.S.No.13 of 1990 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, at Karimnagar, and the same was allowed.