RAVULA KAMALAMMA Vs. RAVULA VENKATA NARASIMHA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Warangal given on 5th May, 1962, whereby the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The essential facts are that the plaintiff's husband had separated from his brothers. He however, died on 23rd June, 1944 Fasli, corresponding to 26th March, 1935, leaving only the plaintiff as his widow. He also left the property mentined in A to E Schedules attached to the plainti. The plaintiff', after the death of her husband, succeeded to the properties and was in possession on the day when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force. It is contended by her that under section 14 of the said Act, she became the absolute owner of the said property. The 1st defendant who is the brother of the plaintiff's husband and the father of the 2nd defendant, did not like the idea of the plaintiff becoming absolute owner because of the said Act. He therefore, with the assistance of the 2nd defendant, started threatening the plaintiff's watchmen and agricultural servants and commenced interfering with the longstanding possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore instituted the present suit to declare her as full and absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties and for the issue of an injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with her possession.

(3.) The 1st defendant admitted the facts mentioned in the plaint. He, however, denied that he threatened the peaceful possession of the plaintiff or at any time tried to interfere with her peaceful enjoyment of the properties. He set up an oral agreement to the effect that the plaintiff would enjoy the property as the life tenant and after her death the property would go to the 1st defendant. His contention is that it is the 2nd defendant who has started interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff as well as the 1st defendant's property. He contended further that defendant No.2 has separately filed a suit against him. He therefore pleaded that he has nothing to do with the 2nd defendant's actions.