THOLETI VENKATA LAKSHMINARASIMHARAO Vs. SOMASI VENKATRAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was placed before a Bench having regard to the market value of the subject-matter of the appeal. It relates to a will executed by one Rajyalakshmamma on the 22nd July, 1947, which was registered on the 24th December, 1947. By and under the will, the testatrix made dispositions in favour of three individuals including one Somasi Venkataramayya. Rajyalakshmamma, who was the daughter of one Tholeti Venkataramayya, was married to Rajah Gadicherla Venkata Subbarao, but her married life did not prove to be a happy one which led her husband to take a second wife. She also instituted a suit for maintenance against her husband which resulted in a sum of Rs. 50 per month being awarded to her. Ever since her separation from her husband, she took up her residence with her parents. Her father brought in the aforementioned Venkataramayya into the family in or about the year 1908 to help him in the management of his estate, he having become old. Venkataramayya began to live with Rajayalakshmamma and her father. His marriage was performed by Rajyalakshmamma's father in or about 1915 and since then he and his wife and their children continued to live in the same family. He came to be looked upon practically as a member of that family. It also appears that Rajyalakshmamma's mother gave him 2 1/2 acres of land sometime before her death which is not in dispute at present. Sometime later, he came to be associated with the management of the affairs of the testatrix also. Her father, not having had any male issue, made three adoptions in succession, the last of them being of the first defendant. Rajyalakshmamma's husband died in or about the year 1940 and, notwithstanding the misunderstandings that existed before, he made a gift of some of his properties to his wife. On his death, his co-widow, the second defendant adopted a boy who is not a party to this litigation. Rajyalakshmamma seems to have brought up her maternal uncle's daughter, who figures in this litigation as the third defendant, and got her married to one Venkatarayya, the offspring of which alliance is D.W. 1. By the year 1947, Rajyalakshmamma possessed considerable properties which she disposed of under the will referred to above and market as Exhibit A-1. The bequest in favour of Venkatramayya consisted of 22 acred, 92 cents of wet land, 20 acres of dry land, 14 acres of pasture land, 20 acres of forest land, two shops and a house in Masulipatnam, a vacant site in the village of Kanumuru measuring about 567 square yards, her share in the village of Thimmanagudam, all the out-standings due to her at the time of the execution of the will and arrears of maintenance payable to her by the adopted son. The first defendant was given 12 acres of inam wet land and two shops, while the third defendant got 9 acres, 81 cents of dry land and one shop in Masulipatam. As Venkatramayya experienced some difficulty in reducing to possession the properties that were allotted to him by Rajyalakshmamma under Exhibit A-1, he was obliged to lay the present action to have his rights establish under the will.

(2.) The suit was contested mainly by the first and third defendants, the second defendant having died during the pendency of the suit and her legal representatives not having been brought on record. The defence was that the will, Exhibit A-1, was not valid, the testatrix not having had sufficient testamentary capacity; that is, Rajyalakshmamma was not having a sound disposing state of mind at the time she executed the will, Exhibit A-1, and secondly, that the will was vitiated by undue influence. The defendants also put forward a subsequent will alleged to have been executed by the said Rajyalakshmamma.

(3.) The trial Court overruled the objections regarding the validity of the will, Exhibit A-1 and disbelieved the story that the testatrix revoked Exhibit A-1 and made another will. In the result, the suit was decreed in toto. The appeal brought by the aggrieved defendants was dismissed by the learned District Judge of Masulipatam who agreed with the finding of the trial Court regarding the second will and negatived the plea of undue influence raised by defendants 1 and 3.