SA/1159/2010 of Smt.P.Gouramma, Vs P.Sakkubai, on 28 December 2012

JUDGMENT:

The unsuccessful defendants 1 to 3 in the Courtsbelow are the appellants in this second appeal. Theplaintiff/respondent filed the suit in the trial Court for partitionof the plaint schedule properties into three equal shares andfor allotment of one such share to her on the ground that sheis wife of late P.Laxma Reddy who died possessed of theplaint schedule properties. The 1[st] defendant also claims tobe wife of late P.Laxma Reddy. The defendants 2 and 3 arechildren of late P.Laxma Reddy through the 1[st] defendant.

After considering oral and documentary evidence on record,the trial Court decreed the suit and it was confirmed by thelower appellate Court.

2) At this stage, there cannot be any dispute aboutrelationship of the plaintiff with late P.Laxma Reddy as hiswife. During the life time of Laxma Reddy, the plaintiff filedM.C. No.1 of 1990 claiming maintenance and it ended incompromise as per Ex.A-2 by which Laxma Reddy agreed topay Rs.200/- per month to her for maintenance and alsoagreed to pay Rs.10,000/- in lumpsum to her at the time of hisretirement from postal department. There is no dispute onthe part of the 1[st] defendant as D.W-1 that even after death ofLaxma Reddy, she paid maintenance amount of Rs.200/- permonth to the plaintiff. It is evident that after Laxma Reddymarrying the plaintiff as his first wife, he married the firstdefendant as his second wife as the plaintiff was not blessedwith any children. There is no plea of cessation of maritalrelationship between Laxma Reddy and the plaintiff duringthe life time of Laxma Reddy by way of divorce. The 1[st]defendant becomes a bigamous wife of Laxma Reddy as hemarried her when the plaintiff is alive.

3) According to the defendants, the plaint schedule properties are properties which belonged to Laxma Reddy’slate mother. After his mother, Laxma Reddy died on13.07.1997 as per Ex.A-3 death certificate. It is contendedby the appellants’ counsel in this second appeal that sincethe plaintiff received lumpsum amount as per the compromisecontained in Ex.A-2, she cannot claim any share in the suitproperties. Subject matter of M.C. No.1 of 1990 was onlymaintenance and not any property dispute between theplaintiff and Laxma Reddy. What was compromised as perExs.A-1 and A-2 was only with regard to maintenanceamount and not with regard to any property rights. UnderEx.A-2 the plaintiff and Laxma Reddy agreed for Rs.200/- permonth to the plaintiff and also another lumpsum ofRs.10,000/- at future date towards maintenance only. Thatwill not take away right of the plaintiff for share in theproperties left by Laxma Reddy after his death. No futurerights in the property were relinquished by the plaintiff in Ex.A-2 compromise memo. Therefore, it is not open to thedefendants to contend that the plaintiff is not entitled for anyshare in the properties left by Laxma Reddy, irrespective ofthe fact that Laxma Reddy got those properties from hismother. The Courts below rightly came to the conclusion in favour of the plaintiff. I find no error or legal error committed by the Courts below and also find that no substantialquestions arise for determination in this second appeal.

4) Hence, the second appeal is dismissed.

Dt.28[th] December, 2012ksh

____________________________

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J