MADDALA SAI LAKSHMI Vs. MEDISETTI LAKSHMI NARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri A. Venkata Ramana, the learned counsel who has been appointed to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae, since none appears on behalf of the respondents, though served.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff who, by way of this appeal, seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 31-12-2001 in O.S. No.15 of 2000 on the file of the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. In the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff, she sought a declaration that she alone is entitled to plaint 'A' to 'D' schedule moveable and immovable properties as perthe last Will dated 12-3-2000 executed by the testator and for possession of properties from the hands of defendants and for future profits over the schedule properties and costsoralternativelyforpartition of the schedule properties into two shares and delivery of one share to the plaintiff.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff principally rests on the basis that the second defendant is her brother. The first defendant is the wife of the deceased. M. Narasimha Rao. The plaintiff claims to have been adopted in the year 1984, which has been subsequently evidenced by a Deed of Adoption-Ex.A-1 dated 10-9-1996. Whereas the second defendant claims that he was adopted in the year 1975. However, according to the plaintiff, the said adoption was cancelled by a deed-Ex.A-8 dated 9-3-1992. The plaintiff also claims the suit properties alternatively in pursuance of bequeath under the Will-Ex.A-3 dated 12-3-2000 alleged to have been executed by the deceased M. Narasimha Rao. Similarly, defendant Nos.1 and 2 also claim the suit properties in pursuance of bequeath under a Will-Ex.B-1 dated 26-10-1999 executed by the said M. Narasimha Rao. The case of the plaintiff was that the second defendant is a wayward and therefore, the adoption was cancelled. She has been adopted rightly and therefore, entitled to the property as the adopted daughter or alternatively, as stated above, in pursuance of the will dated 12-3-2000. Hence, the suit.