GOLLA NARAYANAMMA Vs. GOLLA SURYAPANDURANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the 6th defendant, Narayanamma, against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, in O.S. No. 53 of 1957 on his file. The relevant facts may shortly be stated.

(2.) One Narasimhappa of Thimmanacherla in Guntakal municipal limits has by his wife, Lakshmamma, two sons, (1) Narayanappa and (2) Chennakesavulu. They were all members of an undivided Hindu family owning considerable movable and immovable properties described in Schedules A and B. Narayanappa's wife is Gowramma (2nd defendant), and their sons are D-1 and D-3 to D-5. Chennakesavulu married one Anjanamma in 1939 and had a son by her, Suryapandurangappa, the plaintiff, on 10th July, 1940. Chennakesavulu married a second time Narayanamma, the 6th defendant. Anjanamma died in 1941. Narasimhappa, the father, died in 1951, and a month or two thereafter Chennakesavulu died.

(3.) Afterwards Narayanappa also died on 26th February, 1951, leaving behind his mother, Lakshmamma, his widow (D-2), his sons, D-1, D-3, D-4 and D-5, his brother Chennakesavulu's widow (D-6), and his son, the plaintiff. Lakshmamma died in 1954. The plaintiff's case is that his mother, Anjanamma, was married by Chennakesavulu in 1939 according to Hindu rites, and that the 6th defendant is the junior widow. He, therefore contends that in the joint family properties belonging to Narayanappa and Chennakesavulu he is entitled to a 1/4 share, and Narayanamma to another 1/4 share, and that defendants 1 to 5 are entitled to the 1/2 share of Narayanappa. It was averred in the plaint that after the marriage till she died Anjanamma lived with Chennakesavulu in the family house, and even after her death, he (the plaintiff) too lived in the family house till 1951, when, after the death of Chennakesavulu, he was forced to come away on account of the ill- treatment meted out to him, and that since then he has been living in the house of his maternal aunt, Rangamma. He, therefore, instituted the suit in forma pauperis. He questioned the alienations of items 25, 32 and 34 to 39 of the plaint A Schedule effected by defendants 1 to 6 in favour of defendants 7 and 8, during the pendency of the suit, on the ground that the said alienations were not binding on him. He, therefore, prayed for a decree for partition and separate possession of his 1/4 share in the A and B Schedule properties.