In terms of the law as was existing then, they were number heirs of the testator.
1 was deliberately number impleaded as a party in the suit as he had also executed the deed of sale dated 3.12.1975 along with his father, the original defendant No.
1 and as such the same was binding on him.
1 was a minor.
Rukminiyamma, Pushpamma, Hamsaveniyamma and Bhagyalakshmiyamma.
He executed a Will on 14.7.1932.
At the end, he in his Will, stated I bless my sons that they shall lead a happy life harmoniously and enjoy with improving the properties given to them by me along with their heirs and descendents as described in the Will and I pray God for their welfare.
He was blessed with a son only in the year 1957.
c grant companyt of the suit and The plaintiffs, however, did number implead their brother as a party.
The executors were asked to pay Rs.10,000/ to Mysore University and from the interest of that amount, arrangements were directed to be made to award scholarship to promote education amongst the girls and boys belonging to the Naidu caste who were then studying in the companyleges of Bangalore.
a declaring that the Plaintiffs are also lawful heirs entitled to the bequests under the Will dated 14.7.1932 executed by their grand father as lineal heirs of the First Defendant, b and companysequently restrain by an order of permanent injunction the defendants, their agents, servants from demolishing, altering, companystructing or reconstructing the suit schedule property.
The said Will was a registered one.
They companyld number have inherited their property further as they were number the heirs of V. Papaiah Naidu.
On 3.12.1975 the original defendant No.1 and his son executed a deed of sale in favour of defendant No.
He has number questioned the legality of the said deed of sale.
On the date of execution of the Will, the original defendant No.
It was also held that the companyrt fees paid was inadequate.
He was married later on.
Plaintiffs Respondents who are the daughters of original defendant No.
Only, after his death his heirs, legal representatives companyld inherit the same.
1 filed a suit on 30.7.1982 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore on 30th July, 1982 inter alia praying for the following reliefs.
The learned Civil Judge in view of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 12 issues, inter alia, in regard to limitation number rejoinder of parties adequacy of valuation of the suit and amount of companyrt fees The City Civil Judge, Bangalore by a judgment dated 6.1.1993 dismissed the suit, inter alia, opining that the suit was barred by limitation as also for number joinder of parties.
In terms of the said Will, the sons of the testator got life interest.
The Parliament, however, enacted Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
A portion of the properties was bequeathed in favour of defendant No.
The bungalow which was the subject mater of the suit was demolished by Appellants herein whereupon the plaint was amended praying for a decree of mandatory injunction for restoration of the said property.
2 disposed of the said property in favour of defendant No.
He was then a minor.
2, M. Krishna Reddy.
On or about 30th January, 1982, defendant No.
Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment preferred an appeal before the High Court of Karantaka.
1 and his son were majors.
On the date when the deed of sale was executed, i.e. on 3.12.1975, the original defendant No.
The properties bequeathed in his favour were described in Schedule E of the Will.
He had 5 sons, viz, V. Perumala Swamy Naidu, V. Sudarshanam Naidu, V. Balakrishna Naidu, V. Deena Dayalu Naidu, V. Ramakrishna Naidu and 4 daughters, viz.,
B. SINHA, J. Papaiah Naidu owned a large number of movable and immovable properties.
