MALAMPATI SURYAMBA Vs. VENIGALLA KOTESWARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as they arise out of judgment and decree in O.S.No.35 of 1980, dated 29-04-1988, of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. A.S.No.1887 of 1988 is filed by defendants 16, 17 and 18, and A.S. No. 1433 of 1989 is filed by defendants 4, 13 and 14. By impugned judgment learned trial Judge decreed suit filed by first respondent in both appeals for partition and possession of plaint A, B and C schedule properties, rejecting claim of appellants in A.S.No.1433 of 1989, which was based on the Will and also rejecting the claim of the predecessor of appellants in A.S.No.1887 of 1988, which was based on agreement of sale in respect of item No.l of plaint A schedule properties. In these appeals, for convenience, parties are referred to by their status in the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff - Koteswaramma and defendants 1 to 3, Chandra Seethamma, Malempati Radha Krishna Murthy and Chandra Ranganayakamma, are children of Malempati Kondaiah through his first wife. She passed away in 1945. In 1950 there was a partition between Kondaiah and second defendant. Plaint A schedule properties fell to share of father. After death of his first wife, Kondaiah married Annapurnamma, and settled plaint schedule properties on her under registered documents. Kondaiah passed away in 1971. After his death Annapurnamma was living separately, and she suffered paralysis in March 1973. Her servants were helping her in cultivating the lands. Plaint 'A' schedule land was cultivated by defendants 5 and 6 on lease. Due to impending land ceiling legislation Annapurnamma started encashing her property by selling agricultural lands. She died on 17-06-1978. After her death, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are equally entitled to all the properties of Annapurnamma. Defendant No.4, who is brother of Annapurnamma, created differences among these four, and therefore, they could not agree for partition. At his behest, there was an arbitration agreement executed in favour of his people. Though he has no right over the properties, he took thumb impressions of Annapurnamma after her death on blank papers with an intention to make wrongful gain.

(3.) Defendants 2 and 3 filed written statement supporting the plaintiff. Defendant No.4, who is brother of Annapurnamma, filed written statement. Defendants 14 and 15 and defendants 5, 6, 12 and 13 filed memos adopting the written statement of defendant No.4. The averments and allegations in main written statement are as follows. Kondaiah married Annapurnamma after the marriage of second defendant, as they could not get on well. There was a partition between father and son due to misbehaviour of second defendant. Due to this, late Annapurnamma was not on good terms with the plaintiff or defendants 1 and 3 during her lifetime. Mother of Annapurnamma, Chapalamadugu Punnamma, who was more attached, was taking care of her daughter. As Annapurnamma was not getting expected income from agriculture, she sold some 'Kondaiah's first wife's name is also Annapurnamma. properties to meet her necessities. On 05-11-1976 Annapurnamma sold item No.1 of plaint A schedule properties to defendant No.15 under agreement of sale and delivered possession to him. The purchaser leased out the same to defendants 5 and 6 for a rent of Rs.250/- per year for a period of two years from 1977 to 1979. The lessees enjoyed the land and paid rent to defendant No.15. After expiry of the lease, the land was leased out to Chandra Audinarayana. Defendant No.4 also alleged that Annapurnamma executed a Will on 15-06-1978 in sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing her property in favour of her mother, Punnamma - defendant No.14, and Kilaru Gopala Rao - defendant No.13. She also directed her mother to execute a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.15 in respect of item No.1 of plaint A schedule property after receiving balance of sale consideration and discharge debts with that consideration.