CHAVALI BASVOJI Vs. CHAVALI SHANKARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The five minor appellants represented by their mother Balakotamma sought under Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardian Ship Act (32 of 1956) permission to alienate the scheduled mentioned vacant site situated in Guntur. Balakotamma impleaded her major son-the first respondent and the mother of her late husband Chavali Prasdaarao as the second respondent. It is their case that their (ap. pellants') father died intestate on January 3, 1982 leaving behind their mother P. W. I the first respondent herein their and the appellants and that they are all residents of Tenali. The schedule-site being situated at Guntur there is an attempt to grab off it and that thereby the interests of the appellants would be jeoparized, They negotiated with the prospective purchaser (P.W.4) who offered to pay at the rate of Rs. 79/- per sq. yard under Ex. A-18 contract of sale. From the sale proceeds realized the minors' shares would be invested in Scheduled Bank so that it would earn good interest. The eldest son supported the Case but Sowbhagyamma, mother of Prasada Rao resisted the petition pleading that Prasadarao died unmarried ; at a partition took place on January 12, 1970 between herself the deceased and her other two sons-R. Ws 2 and 3 late Prasada rao got the scheduled property to his share; Balakotamma is not the wife of Prasadarao the appellants and the first respondent are not his children ; no marriage of Prasada rao with Balakotamma took place on April 2, 1961 at 8-30 A. M. ; that Balakotamma (P. W. 1) is a native of Doddaram village in Prakasam District and she belongs to 'Kalavantula' (Dancing girls) caste and Prasadarao belongs to 'Yadava' caste : that one Dharmarao brought P. W. 1 to Tenali and kept her his mistress ; and that therefore the appellants are not entitled to the permission sought for The marriage is not legal and valid.

(2.) In the Court below P. Ws 1 to 6 were examined on behalf of the appellants including Balakotamma as P. W. 1 ; her cousin brother by name Kotilingam as P W 2 and neighbours as P Ws. 3 and 6 her son as P W. 5 and the proposed vendee as P W. 4. R W. 1 is the second respondent and R. Ws 2 and 3 are her sons. The appellants marked as many as 21 documents on their behalf and the respondents marked two documents.

(3.) The lower Court concluded that the evidence of partisan witnesses without corroboration from independent witnesses cannot be accepted : the documentary evidence has not been proved by examining the printer of the wedding card Ex. A-1 and the officials that issued the birth certificate and the study certificates : the documentary evidence is only secondary evidence the photographs taken on the dead body are of no material consequence ; Ex. B-1 has also not been proved as the scribe of Ex. B-l has not been established ; the partition was filed after a long lapse of thirty years after the marriage ; and is a belated one ; Balakotamma is not the legally merried wife (widow) of Prasadarao and that therefore the appellants are not the legitimate children of Prasadarao. Accordingly dismissed the petition. The correctness thereof has been assailed in this appeal.