MUTHINENI RAM REDDY Vs. AILENI INDIRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief episode : The 2nd defendant in O.S.No.14/83 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree made therein dated 30-7-1991 preferred the present Appeal. Defendants 1 and 3 in the said suit are shown as respondents 2 and 3 in the present Appeal and as against them the Appeal was dismissed for default by order dated 3-4-1996. The plaintiff in the said suit is the 1st respondent in the present Appeal. The parties hereinafter, for the purpose of convenience, would be referred to as "plaintiff" and "defendants" as shown in O.S.No.14/83 aforesaid.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of her half share in the plaint schedule properties on the ground that her mother Yerram Venkamma bequeathed the plaint schedule properties in her favour and in favour of her sister, the 1st defendant in the said suit. The learned Judge on the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the Issues recorded the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and D.W.1 to D.W.4, marked Exs.A- 1 toA-5, Exs.B-1 to B-8 and ultimately decreed the suit for partition granting half share to the plaintiff and yet another half share to the 1st defendant and accordingly made a preliminary decree. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal had been preferred.

(3.) Contentions of Sri C.Ramesh Sagar : Sri Ramesh Sagar, the learned Counsel representing the appellant would submit that despite the default order made as against respondents 2 and 3 in this Appeal, in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, the Appeal can be decided on merits. The learned Counsel also pointed out the respective stands taken by the parties to the litigation, the nature of evidence let in and also would submit that the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 may have to be viewed with suspicion since both the attestors are closely related to the plaintiff. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the contents of Ex.B-8 and had taken this Court through the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and would maintain that there are several suspicious circumstances surrounding Ex.A-1 and hence if Ex.A-1 to be disbelieved, automatically all the sons and the daughters of the deceased mother would be entitled to their respective shares. The Counsel also would maintain that only with a view to deprive the legitimate share to which the appellant also is entitled to, this Will had been thought of. The learned Counsel also would submit that though part of the property had been given to the daughter of the 3rd defendant, she was not impleaded as a party and even on this ground, the plaintiff to be non-suited. The Counsel also relied upon certain decisions to substantiate his contentions.