THAMINENI KATHAVANGA NAIDU Vs. MUTLURU RAMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 09.02.1999 in O.S.No.16 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, wherein the suit filed by the appellants- plaintiffs for declaration of title, delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for mesne profits, was dismissed.

(2.) The appellants herein filed O.S.No.16 of 1992 against the respondents herein, with the following averments: The plaintiffs are the sons of T.Ekambara Naidu. Their mother, Rangamma, is the daughter of Pedda Nagaiah. Pedda Nagaiah and his brother Chinna Nagaiah, got divided their properties. Chinna Nagaiah died issueless leaving behind his wife Chinna Vemakka in the year 1938 or 1939. The suit schedule property belongs to Chinna Nagaiah. After his death, his widow Vemakka became entitled to the property as limited owner. The plaintiffs being the only surviving reversioners to the estate of Chinna Nagaiah, became entitled to the suit schedule property. The defendants 1 and 2 are brothers; defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of first defendant. Chinna Vemakka, is the sister of defendants 1 and 2. The defendants have absolutely no right, title or interest to the suit property. The defendants 1 and 2 claimed to have obtained relinquishment deed dated 17.10.1940 from Chinna Vemakka, who was only limited interest owner, she had absolutely no competency to relinquish her rights in the suit property. The . alleged relinquishment deed is; neither true nor valid or binding on the plaintiffs. Chinna Vernakka died on 25.01.1989 and relinquishment deed became ineffective and the reversion to the estate of Chinna Nagaiah opened, and the plaintiffs being nearest reversioners, succeeded to the suit property. The defendants are not the reversioners to the estate of Chinna Nagaiah and their possession under the guise of injunction is illegal. The 3rd defendant claiming to be the Manager of Hindu joint family of himself and the defendants filed O.S.No.130 of 1989 on the file of District Munsif Court, Guntakal for injunction and obtained temporary injunction. The detfendants are not entitled to continue in possession, as they have no title to the suit property. The defendants are also liable for mesne profits from the year 1989 till the delivery of possession. Plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for declaration of their title and for delivery of possession and for ascertainment of mesne profits.

(3.) The 3rd defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the fourth defendant by filing a memo, contending in brief as follows: The relationship as set out in the plaint is false. Rangamma, mother of the plaintiffs has nothing to do with Chinna Nagaiah. The plaintiffs are not reversiconers to the estate of Chinna Nagaiah. The relinquishment deed said to have been executed by Chinna Vemakka on 17.10.1940 is not to the knowledge of the defendants. In spite of relinquishment deed, Chinna Vemakka was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, till her death. She was staying with her brothers-defendants 1 and 2 who were helping and assisting her in cultivation of the lands. Even if Chinna Vemakka has executed any relinquishment deed as stated in the plaint; the same will not create rights in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. Chinna Vemakka died in the year 1989 after Hindu Succession Act 1956 came into operation. Chinna Vemakka acquired absolute rights in the property by virtue of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act. Chinna Vemakka executed a will on 20.01.1988 bequeathing plaint schedule properties in favour of 4th defendant-Bheema Naidu. After the death of Vemakka, the will came into effect and 4th defendant became the owner of the suit property, By virtue of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act. Chinna Vemakka has every right to dispose of the property in the manner she thought fit.