P SESHAMMA Vs. P KRUPASAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein were originally plaintiffs who had instituted O.S.872 of 1982 in the Court of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) The plaintiffs instituted the suit for partition and allotment of one-fourth share to them in the household property. The facts leading to this litigation can be briefly narrated as follows :- Plaintiff No.l is the wife of the deceased Dr.Dayasagar Patri and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased Dayasagar. Defendants 1 to 3 are the brothers and defendant No. 4 is the sister of Dayasagar. It is further stated by the plaintiffs in their suit that the household property was purchased by the father-in-law of plaintiff No.l and grandfather of plaintiffs 2 and 3, namely, Narasimha Bindu. Mr.Narasimha Bindu was a doctor and he was practising medicine at various places including Hyderabad. The husband of plaintiff No.l, named, Dayasagar predeceased his father on 23-11-1976. Narasimha Bindu died on 6-6-1981. Dayasagar was also a doctor but he was homoeopathic doctor. During the lifetime of Dayasagar his father Narasimha Bindu had executed a will on 18-1-1973 which is produced on record at Ex. A-9 and all the sons were given equal shares in the property. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that on the strength of Ex. A-9 they are entitled to have one-fourth share in the household property and therefore, the suit was instituted. The defendants, on appearance, filed their written statement contending that Narasimha Bindu had executed one more will after Ex.A-9 was executed, in which the plaintiff's branch was not given any share. The entire household property was bequeathed by Narasimha Bindu in favour of his three living sons, i.e., defendants 1,2 and 3 and therefore, it was pleaded that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share in the property.

(3.) It appears from the record that on the strength of the evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge, the learned trial Judge was pleased to hold that the deceased Narasimha Bindu had executed one more will (codicil) after Ex. A-9 was executed. The second will was produced on record at Ex.B-8 in which the plaintiff's branch was not given any share by Narasimha Bindu and thus, the claim of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dismissing the suit, the plaintiffs have approached this Court in appeal on the grounds as stated in the appeal memo.