After the death of Nagayya his daughter Pitchamma was married to Lakshmaiah but she died within about two years of her marriage.
As he companyld number perform their marriage during his lifetime, the marriage should be performed after his death in his house and all properties except the properties given to his grandson defendant No.3 should go to his daughter Pitchamma and the said Lakshmaiah.
Thereafter Lakshmaiah married the plaintiff and died soon after without leaving any issue through the plaintiff.
1 and 2.
After death of his first wife Nagayya married defendant No.4, Polamma and through her he got two daughters, Narayyamma and Pitchamma.
He stated that his second wife Polamma defendant No.4 should be looked after properly by his daughter and son in law.
were agreed to be given to the plaintiff and another widow of the family by name Yellamma.
On 4.6.1927, Nagayya executed a will and shortly thereafter died.
Regarding their daughter Narayanamma, he stated that she should be married after attaining proper age and that at the time of marriage she should be given 30 cents of land and further in case his wife Polamma did number wish to reside with his daughter and son in law, she would be entitled to be in possession of the house property, then available and shall have life interest in such property and these properties shall devolve upon his daughter and son in law after the death of his wife Polamma, defendant No.4.
1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff.
Hence this Appeal.
Narayanamma the other daughter of Nagayya died soon after the death of Nagayya with the result that all the suit properties came to devolve upon Yadallay Lakshmaiah who married second time who also died soon.
As there were disputes between parties, plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit property.
In the will it was recorded by him that he wanted to give his daughter, Pitchamma in marriage to his nephew, Yadalla Lakshmaiah and wanted to give all his properties to him, whom he brought to his house two years back from the date of the will.
He declared that both his daughter and son in law shall be entitled to all his outstanding properties and liable for his debts, if any.
The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court.
Exhibit B 2, which was a settlement deed, was executed by defendant Nos.
Some disputes arose and plaintiff expressed her desire to live separately.
By Exhibit B 3 executed by the plaintiff, some properties were relinquished in favour of the defendant Nos.
82 of 1982.
In this deed, arrangement was made by which some properties were given to the plaintiff which were to be reverted back to the family of the defendant Nos.1 and 2.
The 4th defendant also wanted to live separately in the house, which was given to her by her husband as per the will.
At the time of death, Lakshmaiah was living with his brothers, defendants herein and after death of Lakshmaiah, plaintiff companytinued to live with her husbands family until about 1949.
Appellant who was the original plaintiff has challenged the impugned judgment in this appeal.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows.
There was a panchayat in that companynection and a document Exhibit B 1 was executed by which cash, jewellery, etc.
One Thummalapenta Nagayya was the owner of the suit property and through his first wife he got a daughter, Subbamma who was married to defendant No.1.
After few months two other documents were executed namely B 2 and B 3.
PHUKAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.
