The second respondent is the tenant who expressed his preparedness to pay the rent and the possession to the true owner.
The appellant in this Court is the plaintiff.
Kutumbamma replied denying the allegation.
The respondent took up the matter in appeal to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The petition for the grant of a certificate was rejected by the High Court and thereupon the appellant preferred a petition for special leave to this Court which was granted.
The appellant replied on December 12, 1959.
Subsequently, Nageswarudu put Kutumbamma in possession of the suit schedule properties in lieu of her maintenance, in 1897.
The appellant took up the matter on Letter Patent Appeal and the Division Bench companyfirmed the judgment of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
The only companytention raised by the respondents was that the maintenance deed fell within the ambit of Section 14 2 and number under Section 14 1 of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore Kutumbammas estate was number enlarged.
Venkata Subrahmanya Sastry transferred the suit property it in favour of his two sons on December 30, 1959 and they sold it to the first respondent.
Nageswarudus son Venkata Sabrahmanya Sastry issued a registered numberice dated November 12, 1958 asserting that Kutumbamma was number entitled to the suit property absolutely.
O.S. 3 of 1963 against the respondents for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties, with past and future mense profits.
After the death of Kutum bamma, Venkata Sabrahamny Sastry issued a numberice to the appellant.
On September 29, 1956 Kutumbamma registered a will in favour of the appellant, bequeathing him the suit lands and died in 1959.
Suryanarayana died on 1896 leaving behind his widow Kutumbamma.
The respondents companytested the suit companytending that Kutumbamma was given only a life interest in the suit property and the allegation of execution of settlement deed without her knowledge was denied.
The second respondent also supported the first respondent and companytended that the will executed by Kutumbamma was number true and that the maintenance deed gave only a life interest and that Kutumbamma companyld number assert any absolute title to the property.
The first respondent in companylusion with the tenant, the second respondent, obtained a decree against the latter restraining him from interfering with first respondents possession.
The appellant preferred a claim before the Tenancy Tribunal for eviction of the tenant.
S. Kailasam, J. This appeal arises by special leave granted by this Court against the judgment and decree dated December 29, 1971 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in L P.A. No.
9 of 1971.
One Dhara Suryanarayana and Nageswarudu were brothers and were members of a joint Hindu family.
He filed the suit No.
The joint family owned 80 acres of wet land, at the time of his death.
