THUMPATI GOPAYYA Vs. RAYANKULA RADHAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals depend substantially on the same issues of fact and involve the same questions of law. Appeal Nos. 165 and 462 of 1955 arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 75 of 1954 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, and Appeal No. 463 of 1955 arises out of O.S. No. 74 of 1954.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to this regrettable litigation may be briefly stated. There lived in the village of Dharmajigudem, situated in the district of West Godavari, a rich, simple and unsophisticated land-owner by name Vamanamurthi. He was not worldly-wise and it is in evidence that his intellectual faculties were subnormal. In or about May, 1922, he married his maternal uncle's daughter, Bharati Devi (plaintiff in O.S.No. 74 of 1954 and 1st defendant in O.S. No. 75 of 1954 For a decade their married life ran a smooth course. By the year 1933, however, there was misunderstanding between wife and husband resulting in exchange of registered notices. While she was at her parent's house, he demanded her return, and in her reply she complained of ill-treatment at his hands. Also she'asked her husband to render an account of the stridhana property which was entrusted to him. Embittered by Bharati Devi's quarrel with him, Vamanamurti married Tulasamma (1st defendant in O.S. No. 74 of 1954 and 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 75 of 1954). Sometime later, a reconciliation was effected between Bharati Devi and Vamanamurti and she returned to live with her husband. In 1935 again, she went to her parents' house and from there she informed her husband by a registered notice that she was expecting a child and that she had to go away because of renewed ill-treatment meted out to her by him and his relations. Vamanamurti in his reply alleged that she was not pregnant at the time when she left his house five months before. This allegation was construed by Bharati Devi as an aspersion on her chastity and she filed a criminal complaint against her husband alleging that she was defamed. She followed up the complaint by a suit for return of her stridhana moneys. While these proceedings were pending, Vamanamurti purchased peace f-om Bharati De i by exe uti g a sale-deed and gift-deed conveying a substantial portion of his properties to her and her daughters. He also gave a letter of apology expressing regret for having made unfounded aspersions on her character. In the sale-deed and gift-deed executed by him in favour of Bharati Devi and her daughters, it was mentioned that Vamanamurti had executed certain agreements of sale in favour of Garapati people and Tulasamma but that they were nominal and were executed with a view to defraud the rights of Bharati Devi. This resulted in a fresh spate of litigation regarding the possession of the lands which were the subject-matter of the said agreements of sale. While those proceedings were pending, Vamanamurti died on the 28th December, 1937, without male issue but survived by his widows, Bharati Devi and Tulasamma and three daughters by the eldest of them.

(3.) Subsequent to Vamanamurti's death Bharati Devi filed O.S. No. 20 of 1940 on the file of the District Court, Eluru, against Tulasamma and Garapati people for a partition of the properties left by her husband after declaring that the agreements executed by her husband in their favour were not valid and enforceable. Tulasamma and other defendants contested the suit on various grounds. They set up a will as having been executed by Vamanamurti. They raised other defences also. Eventually, the suit was decreed on the 24th August, 1942. The will set up by Tulasamma was disbelieved and the agreements set up by her and the Garapati people were held to be not binding on Bharati Devi. The decree in O.S. No. 20 of 1940 was, it is common ground, affirmed in appeal by the District Court and in Second Appeal by the High Court of Madras.