RAJANNA DEMUDU Vs. RAJANNA KANTHATHALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-appellant married the respondent-plaintiff. The admitted facts and the findings recorded by the appellate court in that regard are that the respondent is the sole daughter of the parents; the appellant is her maternal uncle's son; the marriage was performed at her 8th year; after she attained puberty at the age of 12, she joined her husband; they lived together; on the demise of her father, she and her mother succeeded by intestate succession to the property of her father-Pydayya; the appellant continued to live and was in the management of the plaint schedule properties. On estrangement, the respondent laid the suit for possession and for mesne profits of the plaint schedule property.

(2.) It is the respondent's case that on her father's demise, her mother purchased some more property and also gave her the gold ornaments (schedule mentioned property) and other properties; her mother also purchased along with her brothers an undivided share in some other properties the details of which are not in disputes. Her mother had executed a registered will Ex. A. 11 dated March 15, 1976 bequeathing the properties to her (the respondent). On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant that he came as an illtom son-in-law to the properties and that therefore he has been in possession on the demise of his father-in-law, in his own right as illalom son-in-law and resisted delivery of possession on that ground.

(3.) The trial court framed as many as eleven issues and found regarding the appellant's claim as illatom son-in-law that there is a custom and an agreement between the parties that the appellant would succeed as an illatom son-in-law; thereby he has got a right to succeed to the estate of his father-in-law as an illatom son-in-law. It also held that though the will has been proved to have been executed by the mother or the respondent, it is not valid and does not bind the appellant. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit. On appeal, the appellate court found that there is no custom in the community; there is no agreement that the appellant would succeed as an illatom son-in-law; the will is validly proved to have been executed by her mother and it binds the appellant. Accordingly, it decreed the suit except to the extent of the moveables and cattle. It also decreed the suit for mesne profits from the date of suit till date of delivery of possession. Assailing the appellate decree, the appellant had filed the second appeal.