VAVILAPALI SAROJANAMMA Vs. PAPPALA RAJESWARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 14 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Rajam filed the appeal in A.S. No. 1870 of 2001 against the judgment and decree dated 18-4-2001 dismissing the suit for declaration of the title of plaintiffs 2 to 4 to the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men from interfering with their possession, without costs.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit claiming that the 1st plaintiff is the wife and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons of Vavilapalli Satyamnaidu, son of Kurminaidu and Chinnamminayuralu. Chinnamminayuralu had three daughters - Jaggamma, Varahalamma and Narayanamma, and Narayanamma is the mother-in-law of the defendant. The defendant's husband Pappula China Appalanaidu is the brother of the 1st plaintiff. The plaint schedule and other properties were the absolute properties of Chinnamminayuralu through her father Pappula Pentannaidu of Tunivada. Chinnamminayuralu gave sufficient cash, gold and other articles to her three daughters while performing their marriages and they had nothing to do with the properties of Chinnamminayuralu who was looked after in her old age with great care and affection by her only son Satyamnoidu. Chinnamminayuralu executed a registered Will dated 2-3-1954 in a sound and disposing state of mind in favour of Satyamnaidu bequeathing all her properties. After the death of Chinnamminayuralu, Satyamnaidu succeeded to all her properties and after him, plaintiffs 1 to 4, since 7 years prior to the suit, were in possession and enjoyment of the properties. Satyamnaidu sold items 9 to 11 of Lot I of plaint schedule to the 5th plaintiff receiving Rs. 3,000/- as advance under an agreement of sale dated 1-2-1989 and the balance of Rs. 2,800/- on 20-2-1989. The 5th plaintiff is in possession of the said items since then. When the defendant, Pappula Venkatinaidu and Pappula Venkunaidu threatened to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of some lands covered by the Will, Satyamnaidu filed O.S. No. 73 of 1989. On his death, plaintiffs 2 to 4 and P. Chinnammadu, another daughter, came on record as legal representatives and the suit was decreed after full trial. The defendant filed O.S. No. 66 of 1989 for a permanent injunction against Satyamnaidu in respect of some properties, in which also his legal representatives were impleaded and the suit was dismissed on 7-12-1995. The appeal by the defendant in A.S. No. 2 of 1996 was also dismissed on 30-7-1997. In both the suits, the registered Will dated 2-3-1954 was upheld and the said findings operate as res judicata and estoppel against the defendant. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 executed an agreement of sale dated 13-12-1995 in favour of the 6th plaintiff for items 1 to 6 of Lot II of the plaint schedule receiving an advance of Rs. 1,000/- and executed another agreement of sale dated 7-1-1996 in favour of plaintiffs 7 and 8 for items 7 to 10 of Lot II of the plaint schedule. The defendant filed O.S. No. 199 of 1989 for a permanent injunction in respect of Lot I of the plaint schedule against the 5th plaintiff, Pappula Apparaonaidu, Pappula Venkataswamynaidu, Potnuru Simmayya and Gedela Somayya claiming the same to have devolved on her through her mother-in-law and her mother. That suit was dismissed by the District Munsif on 3-9-1996. But in A.S. No. 1 of 1997, the Sub-Judge allowed the appeal on 6-3-1998 concluding that the registered Will dated 2-3-1954 was not proved. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 or Satyamnaidu were not parties to the suit or the appeal and the suit is only for a permanent injunction, not operating as res judicata. As the defendant gave a report to the police taking advantage of A.S. No. 1 of 1997, the suit was filed to clear the cloud.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit contending that Satyamnaidu ill-treated Chinnamminayuralu in her old age without giving proper food, etc., and hence, she stayed at the houses of her daughters. She was bedridden for a considerable period before her death and was not in a position to understand her own acts, words and utterances. She did not execute the Will dated 2-3-1954 or get it registered and it was forged and fabricated by Satyamnaidu to defeat the rights of the daughters. The daughters would not have been disinherited by the mother in spite of their immense service during her old age and Satyamnaidu was never in possession of the properties covered by the alleged Will. His name was not incorporated in the revenue records in respect of the said properties. In his declaration under the Land Ceiling Act, Satyamnaidu did not mention the plaint schedule lands. The agreement of sale in favour of the 5th plaintiff and the payment of consideration under it are equally false and the 5th plaintiff was never in possession of items 9 to 11 of Lot I. Chinnamminayuralu died in 1954 leaving the plaint schedule Sthridhana properties inherited by the daughters only under Hindu Law and the plaint schedule properties fell to the share of Narayanamma, the mother-in-law of the defendant, in partition with her sisters. Narayanamma and after her death, her only son China Appalanaidu and after his death, his wife, the defendant, and their children alone are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. Satyamnaidu or plaintiffs 1 to 4 have no right, title or possession and the alleged agreements by plaintiffs 1 to 4 have no right, title or possession and the alleged agreements by plaintiffs 1 to 4 to sell the properties to plaintiffs 6 to 8 are equally false and unsupported by consideration. In A.S. No. 2 of 1996, etc., against O.S. No. 66 of 1989 and O.S. No. 78 of 1989 (73 of 1989, the finding of the trial Court about the Will was reversed. The judgment in A.S. No. 1 of 1997 operates as res judicata against plaintiffs 1 to 4 and the children of the defendant having title and possession are also necessary parties to the suit for declaration of title. The plaintiffs, who approached the Court with unclean hands, are not entitled to the equitable relief of permanent injunction and the valuation of the suit and the Court fee paid are incorrect. Hence, the defendant sought for dismissal of the false, frivolous and vexatious suit with costs.