(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed for possession of house and site described in the plaint schedule and for recovery of future rent at Rs. 5/- per mensem. The defendant is the sister of the plaintiff.
(2.) It is now common ground that this property belonged absolutely to Subbamma as her streedhana, though in the plaint the case was set up that the property was acquired in her name for the benefit of her sons. Subbamma had two sons and seven daughters. But, at the time of her death in 1938, the plaintiff was the only son surviving. One of her daughters also predeceased her. The plaintiff claimed that under her will dated 2-10-1938, he became entitled to'the suit property and that the defendant was allowed by him to occupy a portion of the premises because she was his sister and after her husband's death she was in need of shelter. The plaintiff further stated in his plaint that his title to the suit house was admitted by the other five sisters and that four of them had executed release deeds in his favour while the 5th sister recited in a compromise entered into between them that she had no right of inheritance in any of the movable or immovable properties belonging to her mother. He also claimed title by adverse possession.
(3.) The defendant denied the genuineness and validity of the will, asserted that she was in possession in her own right and not with the permission of the plaintiff and claimed that she was entitled to a ? ..?th share in the house and that she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in her own right.