SURATHU SITHARATNAMMA Vs. PILLARISETTI SESHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the same suit which related to the estate of one Pillarisetti Butchi Venkatarao Naidu who died at Masulipatam on 17 November, 1932. The first plaintiff is the junior wife of the deceased and the second plaintiff is her minor daughter. The defendant is the daughter of the deceased by his predeceased senior wife. The main prayer in the plaint was for recovery of possession by the plaintiffs, on the footing that the deceased died intestate. As the defendant was setting up a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased on 10 May, 1932, there were alternative prayers for maintenance, for the marriage expenses of the second plaintiff, etc. The defendant set up Ex. I as the will left by the deceased. The plaintiff denied its genuineness and contended that even if it had been executed by the deceased, it must have been got from him at a time when he was not of a sound disposing state of mind and as a result of undue arid overpowering influence exercised by the defendant and those interested in her. The defendant denied these allegations. The will Ex. I contains certain provisions as regards the maintenance to be paid to the plaintiffs and the money to be paid for the marriage expenses of the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs contended that even if the will was true and otherwise valid, these provisions as regards the maintenance, marriage expenses, etc., could not affect their right to a reasonable provision for the same under Hindu law.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that Ex. I was duly executed by the deceased in a sound disposing state of mind and was not brought about by any undue influence. He accordingly dismissed the suit so far as it claimed possession of the estate. He was however of opinion that the provisions in Ex. I as regards maintenance and marriage expenses to be paid to the plaintiffs were inadequate and unsubstantial and were not binding upon the plaintiffs. He was also of opinion that the security for the same provided by the will was of very little value. He accordingly enhanced the amounts payable to the plaintiffs under these heads and made better provision for securing their payment. The plaintiffs have preferred A.S. No. 249 of 1936 against this decree and the defendant has preferred A.S. No. 151 of 1936.

(3.) So far as the claim for recovery of possession of the estate on the footing of intestacy is concerned, we see no reason to differ from the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge. Ex. I purports to have been executed on the 10 of May, 1932, that is, nearly six months before the death of the deceased. It was deposited with the District Registrar of Vizagapatam on the 16 of June, as the deceased happened to go to Vizagapatam and stay there for nearly a month for medical treatment. D.W. 2 who was admittedly the doctor who was treating the deceased at Masulipatam speaks to the physical and mental capacity of the deceased in May, 1932. A point has been made that this witness has not been asked to attest the will; but the very fact that the deceased preferred to deposit the will rather than register it shows that for some reason, the deceased did not wish the contents of the will to become known to a large circle of people. The evidence of P. W. 3, the doctor who examined the deceased at Vizagapatam does not suggest that the deceased was not capable of executing a will on the 10 of May. He was only asked whether the deceased was capable of engaging his mind in elaborate intellectual work requiring sustained and serious attention and clear memory and he said no .