GALLU CHITTEMMA. Vs. GALLU CHINNAMMI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, in O.S. No. 107 of 1952.

(2.) The facts necessary for appreciating the contentions raised in this appeal may be briefly stated. In the village of Bapirajukottapalli, in the Golugonda Taluk of the Visakhapatnam District, there was a Koppula-Velama family, consisting of three brothers, Sambamurti, Ramamurthy and Appalanaidu. Sambamurti and his brothers by their joint exertions acquired certain lands by purchase. Sambamurti had a son by name Narayanamurti. Narayanamurti died on the 12th February, 1951. Sambamurti died a few months later in October 1951. The plaintiff is the widow of Narayanamurti. The 1st defendant is her mother-in-law, the 3rd defendant is the daughter of the 2nd defendant. It is claimed by the 2nd defendant that she was married to Narayanamurti and that the 3rd defendant is the offspring of the marriage. Her status as the wife of Narayanamurti is one of the matters in controversy in this appeal. Defendants 4 to 7 are the alienees of certain properties from Sambamurti, his son Narayanamurti, and the 2nd defendant.

(3.) The plaintiff's case was that she was married to the late Narayanamurti about 10 years prior to suit, that her husband Narayanamurti and his father Sambamurti were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and that the properties described in schedules A to C appended to the plaint were the joint family properties of her husband and his father and were treated and enjoyed as such. She averred that after joining her husband, she had an unhappy life by reason of the ill-treatment meted out by him to her and that unable to put up with that treatment and realising that it would be unsafe for her to live with her husband, she left his house towards the end of March, 1949. She filed O.P. No. 31 of 1950 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Yellamanchilli, for leave to file a suit against her husband in forma pauperis for maintenance and for other reliefs, but, during the pendency of the petition, her husband died and the petition was dismissed as not pressed. She further averred that her husband purported to marry the 2nd defendant in October, 1949, that by then the 2nd defendant was the wife of one Nagireddi Nagamayya of Vepada, and that as her husband was alive and as her marriage with him was subsisting, there could be no legal marriage between Narayanamurti and the 2nd defendant. It was admitted by her that the 2nd defendant was brought into the family house in or about October, 1949, and that she gave birth to the 3rd defendant but she alleged that the marriage of the 2nd defendant with her husband during her life-time was "Bigamous and Illegal" and that defendants 2 and 3 were consequently not entitled to any rights in or in relation to the properties of her husband and his father which were joint family properties. She stated that she has impleaded them as defendants to the action as they were residing in the family house and enjoying the family properties along with the Ist defendant, her mother-in-law. On these averments, she prayed for a decree for a partition of the properties described in schedules A and B and items 1 to 24 of Schedule C or their value, into two equal shares and for delivery of one such share to her, for recovery of the value of item 25 of schedule C, for subsequent profits and other incidental reliefs.