P. RAJINI Vs. P. NARASAMMA AND ORS.
LAWS(APH)-2015-12-4
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 14,2015

P. Rajini Appellant
VERSUS
P. Narasamma Respondents




JUDGEMENT

A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J. - (1.)These two Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of a common cause of action.
(2.)The plaintiff is the petitioner. She filed O.S. No. 15 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, seeking partition of plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds into five equal shares and for allotment of one such share to her. After filing the written statement by the defendants, the fourth defendant filed I.A. No. 472 of 2014 seeking permission of the Court to condone the delay in receiving the original Will dated 07.10.1995 for the purpose of marking and also filed I.A. No. 475 of 2014 for amendment of the pleadings in the written statement by inserting paragraphs 14A to D. Those two applications were allowed by separate orders on 30.01.2015 by the trial court, challenging which the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.
(3.)In the affidavit filed in support of the applications, the fourth defendant stated that her deceased husband, during his lifetime, executed the Will in her favour on 07.10.1995 with limited rights to her and the items mentioned therein are nothing but the suit schedule properties of items 5, 7, 9 and 10. She further stated that her husband died on 08.04.1996 and the Will was acted upon. Though the plaintiff is her daughter and the other defendants are her children, they did not bring the above Will to the notice of the Court. She further stated that she was residing in the upper portion of the building, alone, preparing her own food and there was nobody to look after her welfare and other needs in the old age. Her upper joint in waist was fractured and she underwent surgery twice and the suit was filed for partition of properties for their greedy necessities leaving the old aged mother to her own. When she refused the request of the first defendant - her only son, to come to the Court and depose in his favour, he shouted at her. She then got her chief affidavit read over by her grandson and realized that the existence of the Will was not brought to the notice of the Court. She searched for the Will and found it kept in a polythene cover intact. In the circumstances, she engaged her own Advocate and filed the applications.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.