TODUPUNOORI DUBBIAH Vs. TODUPUNOORI LAXMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge. Medak at Sangareddy given on 30th day of June, 1967. The relevant facts are that the respondents--plaintiffs instituted O. S. No. 31 of 1962 in the Court of the District Munsif of Siddipet. It was contended inter alia in the plaint that Rejesham, Lakshminarayana and the defendants were three brothers. The three plaintiffs are the sons of Lakshminarayaan. Rejesham died 18 years before the suit leaving his widow Lakshmi Bai. The properties mentioned in the B Schedule are said to be ancestral properties of the three brothers. After the death of Rajesham, his widow Lakshmi Bai filed O. s. 20/60 in the District Munsifs Court, Siddepet for recovery of possession of A Schedule properties and certain other properties. The suit was laid against the plaintiffs and the defendant in this suit. It was alleged that the suit properties therein had fallen to the share of her deceased husband Rajesham and that refer his death she became entitled to those properties. She was deprived of those properties by the defendants in that suit. In a joint written statement the defendants in that suit denied the right of the plaintiff in that suit on the ground that those properties did not fall to the share of her husband nor she could become entitled to them after his death. Their contention was that the family continued to the joint, and after the death of the plaintiffs husband they became entitled to the property under the principle of survivorship. The suit was compromised and a compromise memo was filed in the court on 31-8-1960. It was further contended that in the said memo of compromise the defendants in that suit accepted the contention of the plaintiff. In consideration of Rs. 3150 which was paid to the plaintiff outside the Court, the plaintiff in that case gave up her right in the properties and agreed that the property may be taken by the plaintiffs in the present suit. It was further provided that the 4th defendant in that suit admitted that he had no title to those properties. The compromise was recorded and in pursuance of the said compromise the suit was dismissed.

(2.) While so the defendants-appellants filed O. S. NO. 48 of 1961 for the issue of an injunction and for cancellation of the above said compromise decree. That suit, however, was dismissed for default on 18-6-62. No further steps to restore the same were taken.

(3.) The present suit therefore was instituted by the plaintiffs on the above said allegation and a petition is demanded of the properties. They also claimed separate possession of the plaint A Schedule properties.