AMARA VENKATA SUBBIAH Vs. SHAIK HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INTRODUCTION These two appeals by defendants, are against judgment and decree dated 30. 12. 1988 in OS No. 33 of 1981 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kavali. Appellant in AS No. 1541 of 1989 is aggrieved by the decree declaring that Shaik hussain Bi (SHB), first respondent in appeal, is owner of items 1 and 2 of plaint-A schedule properties. Appellants in AS no. 568 of 1989 are aggrieved by clause (2)of decree directing that they shall pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- to SHB with future interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the suit i. e. , 4. 4. 1980 till the date of realization. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, it is expedient to dispose of them by common judgment. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their status in suit. Pleadings of plaintiff

(2.) SHB filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of plaint-A schedule properties and for direction to defendants 2 and 3 or first defendant in the alternative to pay her a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with future interest thereon. Her case is that she is resident of Kommalapadu Village of Addanki taluk in Prakasam District. She was married to Mohammed Ali. Her husband abandoned her. She therefore came to kavali for livelihood. She took up job as servant-maid She came in contact with already married Konjeti Ramaiah, who maintained her. They lived together as husband and wife, as a result of which SHB gave birth to four daughters and one son.

(3.) KONJETI Ramaiah was living with his wife, Smt. Chenchamma, first defendant, at house bearing No. 3-14-1. He suffered from throat cancer for one year prior to his death. It is alleged that SHB, her daughter noorjahan and her son Masthan, stayed at Cancer Institute, Adayar, Madras, where Ramaiah was undergoing treatment. On 5. 5. 1979, Ramaiah executed registered will bequeathing all his movable and immovable properties including his share in business of defendants 2 and 3 to chenchamma. Having come to know about this, on 6. 5. 1979, SHB went to Ramaiah 1. One of her witnesses (PW. 4) describes her as concubine of Ramaiah. along with six persons to persuade Ramaiah to make adequate provision for her and children. Ramaiah executed codicil in sound and disposing state of mind in their presence, between 5. 30 and 6. 00 p. m. Unregistered codicil dated 6. 5. 1979 gave absolute right to shb over items 1 and 2 of plaint-A schedule as well as Rs. 30,000/- due to him from defendants 2 and 3. On the same day, he became serious and was shifted to Madras where he died. Plaintiff thereafter was allegedly paid monthly maintenance of rs. 300/- by defendants 2 and 3 firms till 1. 10. 1979. Plaintiff approached defendants 2 and 3 for payment of Rs. 30,000/- in connection with marriage of her eldest daughter Noorjahan on 18. 9. 1979. But at the instance of defendants 2 and 3, first defendant issued notice dated 10. 10. 1979 disputing right of plaintiff to seek payments from defendants 2 and 3. SHB got issued reply notice dated 22. 10. 1979 referring to codicil dated 6. 5. 1979. First defendant again issued notice dated 30. 10. 1979 repudiating codicil and denying relationship between ramaiah and SHB. First defendant also alleged that codicil must have been forged with a view to deprive first defendant of the properties bequeathed to her. Pleadings of defendants