PINNAKA HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. GARLAPATI DHANALAKSHMI ALIAS ANDALLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in Original Suit No.70 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Addanki, dated 30-8-1994 granting declaration of title to and possession of plaint A and B schedule properties to the plaintiff with future mesne profits and costs, while making the delivery of plaint B schedule properties subject to payment of the amount paid by defendants 1 and 2, by the plaintiff, the unsuccessful defendants filed the present appeal.

(2.) The facts leading to the appeal are that the plaintiff filed the suit as an indigent person claiming that the 1st defendant is the son and the 2nd defendant is the wife of Pinnaka Nageswara Rao, and due to differences, the 2nd defendant left to her parents house along with the 1st defendant a few months after the birth of the 1st defendant and she demanded through elders settlement of her claim for maintenance and the 1st defendant's share in the family properties. Pinnaka Nageswara Rao agreed and the 1st defendant was given his share in the family properties under registered partition deed dated 22-7-1962, in which the 2nd defendant represented the minor 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant also executed a relinquishment deed in favour of Nageswara Rao in respect of her maintenance claim and since then Pinnaka Nageswara Rao and the defendants were living separately, enjoying their properties separately in their own right. Nageswara Rao was living with Ravi Rangaiah, his maternal uncle, since 1962 and was looked after by Ravi Rangaiah's family including the plaintiff, as there was none else to lookafter him. As he developed chest discomfort prior to 23-10-1982, Pinnaka Nageswara Rao executed a Will in a sound and disposing state of mind on 23-10-1982 bequeathing the plaint A and B schedule properties to the plaintiff, the daughter of Ravi Rangaiah. Nageswara Rao died on 25-10-1982. While item 1 of plaint A schedule fell to the share of Nageswara Rao in the partition, items 2 and 3 were acquired by him after the partition. He pledged plaint B schedule gold jewels to the Union Bank of India, Ravinuthala and Andhra Bank, Ravinuthala borrowing Rs.6,000/-, and borrowed Rs.3,000/- from the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Pamidipadu, which debts have to be discharged by the plaintiff as per the Will. The defendants filed caveats against the plaintiff and forcibly dispossessed her from the plaint A schedule properties, a week prior to the suit. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit as an indigent person.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit contending that immediately after the marriage with the 2nd defendant, Nageswara Rao developed bad habits like gambling and debauchery and Nageswara Rao and the 1st defendant partitioned their properties under a registered partition deed in 1962. After partition, Nageswara Rao sold some properties and purchased items 2 and 3 of plaint A schedule with the income from the land sold. In spite of partition, Nageswara Rao was living with the defendants and leading marital life with the 2nd defendant till his sudden death intestate on 25-10-1982 due to heart attack. The defendants succeeded to the plaint A and B schedule properties as the sole heirs of Nageswara Rao and the Will dated 23-10-1982 is a rank forgery. Nageswara Rao being looked after by Ravi Rangaiah or the plaintiff since 1962, is false. The creditors of Nageswara Rao filed suits against the defendants for recovery of their debts. The pledge of gold jewellery mentioned in the plaint B schedule to the Union Bank of India and Andhra Bank, Ravinuthala by borrowing some amounts, is true. The plaintiff added as a party in O.S. No.21 of 1983 of the Principal District Munsifs Court, Addanki, contested as 3rd defendant claiming testamentary succession, while the defendants herein remained ex parte and the suit was dismissed on 20-6-1989 with the observation that the plaintiff is not the debtor under testamentary succession. The same operates as res judicata and the cause of action and valuation are incorrect. Hence, the suit be dismissed with costs.