1
IN THE COURT OF SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER SC/ST(POA) ACT 1989- CUM- VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE: AT L B NAGAR :RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
PRESENT: - SRI CH.RAMESH BABU.
SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL
OF CASES UNDER SC&ST (POA) ACT,
CUM VII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, R.R. DIST
Dated this the 31 st day of July, 2015.
O.S.No. 361 Of 2014
BETWEEN:-
1.Sri Malempati Narasimha Rao, S/o. Govardhanaiah, Hindu, aged 69 years, Occ: Agrl, R/o. Maddirala Village and Post, Chilakaluripeta Mandal, Guntur District.
2.Sri Malempati Annapoorna W/o. Narasimha Rao, Hindu, aged 68 years, Occu: House wife, R/o. Maddirala Village and Post, Chilakaluripeta Mandal, Guntur District. …Plaintiffs.
AND
1.Sri Malempati Govardhan, S/o. Narasimha Rao, Hindu, aged: 36 years, Occ: Employment, R/o.H.No. 8-3-676/1/A/3, K.S. Towers, Yellareddyguda, Main Road, Ameerpet – 500072.
2.Smt. Kantamaneni Rudrama Devi, W/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged: 44 years, Occ: Professor in English, R/o. Flat No. 309, Rekha Towers, New 100 Feet Road, Poranki, Vijayawada.
3.Smt. Koppaku Neelilma, W/o. Srinivas Rao, Hindu, aged: 38 years,Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No. 7, Sy.No.115/2, Opp. SV Innovations, B. Narayanapura, Bangalore – 560016. …Defendants.
This Suit coming on 04-06-2015 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. K.V. Bhanu Prasad, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Defendants were set exparte and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration basing on the will executed by Dr.
Prathima dated 31-05-2013.
2
The plaintiffs contended that they have three daughters and one son and as the 2nd daughter died the other children are shown as defendants. The other children are very happy and are leading comfortable family life, the life of the 2nd daughter late Prathima was in trouble right from the day of her marriage. The plaintiffs 2nd daughter Prathima was a hard working girl and finished her MBBS and thereafter out her interest did her post graduation is PSYCHYIATRY.
Plaintiffs performed her marriage with one Bodala Murali Krishna in the year 1997 and thereafter both of them left to U.S. The Son-in-law Murali Krishna represented himself as an Engineer at the time of marriage and later on it was found he has no qualification as an engineer. But, taking advantage of the marriage with the daughter of the plaintiffs and when late Prathima has established herself as
Doctor, her husband Murali Krishna was showing interest on her income and never paid any attention on her and shown love and affection on his wife i.e., Late
Prathima and it led to differences between them. The said Murali Krishna caused harassment to the daughter of the plaintiffs and made her life miserable. Infact he high handedly swallowed huge amounts belonging to his wife and having realized the difficulties the daughter of the plaintiffs late Prathima took divorce from her husband on 08-02-2007 by filing OP.No. 136/2004 on the file of Addl. Sr. Civil
Judge Narasaraopet. Therefore all the issues, between the daughter of the plaintiff
and her husband were settled by Feb 2007 itself.
The plaintiffs further averred that unfortunately their daughter Prathima met with a serious road accident in U.S and thereafter could not become a normal person. As there was no relief to her in the advanced treatment in U.S, she came to
India in Feb 2013 with a view to take Ayurvedic treatment at Kerala. When she was undergoing treatment at Kerala her health condition further deterioriated and passed away on 30-06-2013. As her health condition is not good she executed a 3 will on 31-05-2013 in favour of her parents in respect of properties mentioned in the schedule and by clearly stating that her parents are the exclusive beneficiaries and custodians of the scheduled properties. She also gave the discretion to her parents not only to enjoy but also to distribute her properties to the brother and sisters.
The plaintiffs further averred that they are in possession and enjoyment of landed property as well as two storyed building in view of the will executed in their favour and also corresponding with the banks in America where the deposits and ornaments were kept. The defendants who are the daughters and son of the plaintiffs and brother and sisters of the deceased Prathima are opposing the right and authority of plaintiffs to deal with the properties of Late Prathima under the will dated 31-05-2013. Plaintiff submits that, except the plaintiffs the defendants or anybody are having any right to deal with the schedule properties or bank accounts of the Late Prathima. Now, the defendants are trying to occupy the house at
L.B.Nagar and are claiming rents over there. Under these circumstances the plaintiffs are forced to file this suit. Plaintiff submits that, they have not filed any other suit or proceeding in respect of the suit schedule land or for the same relief.
The Defendants were set exparte.
In proof of the case of the plaintiffs first plaintiff was examined as PW1 and
Ex.A1 to A8 are marked. J. Subba Rao was examined as PW2 who is attester of the will.
The point for consideration 1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for declaration as prayed?
The contention of the plaintiffs are referred supra. Hence, there is no need to reiterate the same. The case of the plaintiffs that they are parents of the deceased
Prathima she executed a will dated 31-05-2013 inpursuance of the will the 4 properties referred in the will are acquired by the plaintiffs according to the will plaintiffs are the absolute owner. The defendants are trying to occupy the house under these circumstances they filed the suit.
In proof of the case of the plaintiffs the first plaintiff was examined as PW1 his evidence is inconsonance with his pleadings and he got filed Ex.A1 is the original will and Ex.A2 is the death certificate and Ex.A3 is the CC of Sale Deed
Ex.A4 and A5 are market valuation certificate of A and B schedule properties.
Ex.A1 shows that Prathima executed a will stated that her parents are exclusive beneficiary and the custodian of all the properties mentioned in the will and they may enjoy or distribute the same among her brother and sisters, Ex.A2 is the death certificate which shows that Prathima died on 03-06-2013 Ex.A3 is the sale deed which shows that the deceased has purchased the A schedule property, Ex.A6 is the decree in OP 136/2004 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsa
Raopet which shows that the marriage between the Prathima and her husband was dissolved, Ex.A7 is the order in OP.No. 136/2004 on the file of Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Narsaraopet which shows that the petition filed by the deceased U/s.
13 (1) (1a) Hindu marriage Act and decree was passed for dissolution of marriage between deceased Prathima and her husband, Ex.A8 is the Order in GWOP No.
04/2003 on the file III District Judge, Guntoor which was dismissed on the point of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs got examined PW2 who is the attester of the will he stated that the deceased has executed the will.
The evidence of PW1 is inconsonance with their pleadings and the evidence of PW2 and document filed by them. On considering the evidence of PW1, PW2 and Ex.A1 it is proved that the deceased B. Prathima has executed will inpursuance of the will the plaintiffs are became the successors of the suit schedule properties under legacy of the will.
5
In view of the above discussions the plaintiff proved the will executed by deceased Prathima. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitle for declaration.
In the result, plaintiffs are declared as successors of the suit schedule properties under the legacy of the will executed by late B. Prathima dated 31-05-2013.
Dictated to personal Asst., transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on this 31 st day of July, 2015.
Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act,cum VII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, RR.Dist
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
On behalf of the Plaintiffs:
PW1 – Malempati Narasimha Rao PW2 – Jampani Subbarao
On behalf of the Defendants:
-Nil-
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
On behalf of the Plaintiffs:
Ex.A1 – is the Original Will Ex.A2 – is the Original Death Certificate of Late Prathima Ex.A3 – is the CC of Sale Deed vide Doc.No. 712/2010 dated 22-03-2010 Ex.A4 – is the Original Market Value Certificate of ‘A’ schedule property Ex.A5 – is the Original Market Value Certificate of ‘B’ schedule property. Ex.A6 – is the Decree in OP.No. 136/2004 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet. Ex.A7 – is the Order in OP.No. 136/2004 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet. Ex.A8 – is the Orders in GWOP No. 04/2003 on the file of III ADJ, Guntur.
On behalf of the Defendants:
- Nil –
Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial
of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act,cum VII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, RR.Dist