Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 680 (AP)

V. Venkataramana Reddy v. V. Mangamma

2014-06-06

M.S.K.JAISWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT : O.S.No.130 of 1981 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati was filed by the 1st appellant, who died during the pendency of the appeal and his son is impleaded as the 2nd appellant. The suit was filed against the Defendants 1 to 9 and it was contested by Defendants Nos.2, 3 and 4. Defendants Nos.1, 5 to 9 remained ex parte. The appeal is also being contested by Respondents/Defendants Nos.2, 3 and 4 only. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties, comprising of four items and he claimed half share therein. Through Judgment dt. 31.3.1988, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati partly decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for half share in Item No.4 of the plaint schedule, which he mortgaged to one Kuppa Reddy, and 2nd defendant was allotted the other half, which she sold away to Defendants Nos.3 and 4. The suit in respect of Items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule was dismissed. 4. The case of the plaintiff, as averred in the plaint, is as under:- The plaintiff is the son of one late Krishnaswamy Reddy, through his second wife Smt. Venkataramanamma. Late V. Ramaswamy Reddy was his son, through his first wife Smt. Thulasamma, who died 40 years ago and subsequently he married the mother of the plaintiff, who died in 1970. The said Krishnaswamy Reddy had a brother Sreenivasulu Reddy, who constituted a joint Hindu Family and divided their properties under a registered partition deed dt. 21.5.1945, under which the father of plaintiff, late Krishnaswamy Reddy acquired valuable properties. Apart from that, Krishnaswamy Reddy also acquired the plaint schedule properties from out of his income from his Government job, and also from the income of the joint family properties. As Krishnaswamy Reddy was a Government servant, he got the sale deeds in the name of his elder son Ramaswamy Reddy, who was a native Doctor. Krishnaswamy Reddy died in 1965, and therefore, the plaintiff and Ramaswamy Reddy were entitled to half share each. The 1st defendant is the first wife of the said Ramaswamy Reddy, who died in 1969 issueless. Therefore, his undivided half share devolved upon the 1st defendant. Krishnaswamy Reddy died in 1965, and therefore, the plaintiff and Ramaswamy Reddy were entitled to half share each. The 1st defendant is the first wife of the said Ramaswamy Reddy, who died in 1969 issueless. Therefore, his undivided half share devolved upon the 1st defendant. However, the 2nd defendant is proclaiming that she is the second wife of Ramaswamy Reddy and made illegal alienations in favour the Defendants 3 to 9, which are absolutely void and cannot bind the plaintiff. Further, even if the 2nd defendant is the 2nd wife of Ramaswamy Reddy still she cannot claim any right over the properties of Ramaswamy Reddy, in view of the fact that her marriage with Ramaswamy Reddy is void and bigamous in the eye of law. The defendants 3 to 9, knowing fully well all these facts, have purchased the properties from the 2nd defendant, who has no title at all. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to his half share. 5. The 2nd defendant filed written statement contending that though Krishnaswamy Reddy and his brother Srinivasulu Reddy divided their ancestral properties under registered partition deed dt. 21.5.1945, Krishnaswamy Reddy was not allotted valuable properties, and denied that he got sale deeds in the name of his elder son Ramaswamy Reddy, as he was a Government servant. They are not enjoying the suit properties jointly treating them as joint family properties, as joint owners. It is also denied that the 1st defendant is the wife of Ramaswamy Reddy and after his death, his share devolved upon the 1st defendant. It is alleged that Krishnaswamy Reddy had a brother-Srinivasulu Reddy and they jointly owned a site Item No.4 and some other properties, which were partitioned under Partition Deed dt. 21.5.1945, and Krishnaswamy Reddys branch got Item No.4 of the suit schedule property, while the other half share therein fell to the share of Srinivasulu Reddys branch. Further, through first wife, Krishnaswamy Reddy got a son Ramaswamy Reddy and a daughter Padmavathamma. After the death of his 1st wife, Krishnaswamy Reddy has married 2nd wife, who gave birth to a son, and both of them died. After that, Krishnaswamy Reddy again married 3rd wife, and got a son, the plaintiff herein and a daughter-Thayaramma. After the partition, Krishnaswamy Reddy sold away all the properties. After the death of his 1st wife, Krishnaswamy Reddy has married 2nd wife, who gave birth to a son, and both of them died. After that, Krishnaswamy Reddy again married 3rd wife, and got a son, the plaintiff herein and a daughter-Thayaramma. After the partition, Krishnaswamy Reddy sold away all the properties. The eldest son of Krishnaswamy Reddy i.e., Ramaswamy Reddy married this defendant on 12.12.1945 as per the Hindu rites and custom, but has no issues. Ramaswamy Reddy purchased the lands in several survey numbers at Nagamangalam village under a registered sale deed dt. 12.6.1948 from one Kuppamma, and also purchased house-Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, under registered sale deed dt. 12.2.1953 from Puli Rajamma and was in exclusive possession of the same. The house, shown as Item No.3 of the schedule, originally belongs to one Puli Ranga Reddy, who executed a registered Will, bequeathing the same to Ramaswamy Reddy on 28.7.1947. The plaintiff or his father Krishnaswamy Reddy had no title or interest over the said properties, and they were never in possession of the same, much less the alleged joint possession along with Ramaswamy Reddy. As the said Ramaswamy Reddy has no issues through this defendant, they adopted a female-Anuradha, sisters daughter of this defendant. After the death of Ramaswamy Reddy in 1969, this defendant and her adopted daughter succeeded to the properties of Ramaswamy Reddy and are in possession of the same. The house-Item No.2 has been let out to 5th defendant. She sold the house, Item No.3 to the defendants 3 and 4 and delivered vacant possession. She also sold half share in Item No.4 to the 6th defendant and delivered possession. Further, Ramaswamy Reddy, this defendant and their adopted daughter have perfected their right by adverse possession to the aforesaid lands at Nagamangalam and houses, shown as Items 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule property. However, this defendant never denied the title and possession of the plaintiff to the extent of half share in Item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e., Anuradha, their adopted daughter. Therefore, this defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. 6. The 3rd defendant filed his written statement with the following averments: The properties, which fell to the share of Krishnaswamy Reddy are not valuable and does not yield any considerable income. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e., Anuradha, their adopted daughter. Therefore, this defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. 6. The 3rd defendant filed his written statement with the following averments: The properties, which fell to the share of Krishnaswamy Reddy are not valuable and does not yield any considerable income. Apart from that his salary was also very meagre. Hence, Krishnaswamy Reddy cannot purchase any immovable properties either on his name or in the name of his son-Chilakuri @ Veluru Ramaswamy Reddy. The plaintiff has never been a member of the joint family of Krishnaswamy Reddy and Ramaswamy Reddy. The properties standing in the name of Ramaswamy Reddy were his own self-acquisitioned properties, purchased from out of his own funds and earnings. Therefore, the plaintiff has nothing to do with the said properties. Further, late Ramaswamy Reddy was the absolute owner and after his death, his properties in its entirety devolved upon his only legal heir i.e., the 2nd wife 2nd Defendant. The 1st defendant ceased to be his legally wedded wife, as she has deserted her husband and given up all her rights over Ramaswamy Reddy, and had re-married one Kuppi Reddy of Narakalakuppa, and given birth to four children through her second husband. Therefore, either herself or her children have any right over the properties of Ramaswamy Reddy, and in view of the same the 1st defendant is not a necessary party to the suit, and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of unnecessary party. Further, the 2nd defendant is legally wedded wife of Ramaswamy Reddy and thus, after his demise, she is the sole heir of her husbands properties, which are in her exclusive possession and enjoyment. Therefore, the alienations, if any affected by her are valid and binding on all the persons, including the plaintiff. The plaintiff is well aware of the fact about the legal heir certificate issued by the Collector, Chittoor, in favour of the 2nd defendant. Further, with regard to Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property, the 2nd defendant sold away the same through registered sale deed dt. 22.8.1979 in favour of Defendants 3 and 4 and delivered vacant possession. The plaintiff used to blackmail the 3rd defendant and his wife for which he was warned many times. The suit is liable to be dismissed. Further, with regard to Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property, the 2nd defendant sold away the same through registered sale deed dt. 22.8.1979 in favour of Defendants 3 and 4 and delivered vacant possession. The plaintiff used to blackmail the 3rd defendant and his wife for which he was warned many times. The suit is liable to be dismissed. However, if for any reason, the suit has to be decreed, this defendant prays that the Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property may be allotted to the share of the 2nd defendant only to protect the legal rights of defendants 3 and 4. 7. The 4th defendant filed a Memo adopting the written statement of Defendant No.3. 8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues:- 1) Whether the suit schedule properties were acquired by Krishnaswamy Reddy in the name of his son Ramaswamy Reddy benami and whether there are treated as the joint family properties? 2) Whether the suit properties, except Item No.4 are the exclusive self acquired properties of Ramaswamy Reddy? 3) Whether the Court fee paid is correct and sufficient? 4) Whether D-1 is the wife of late Ramaswamy Reddy? 5) Whether D-2 is not the wife of late Ramaswamy Reddy? 6) Whether D-3 and her adoptive daughter-Anuradha perfected their title to suit properties? 7) Whether D-3 is a bona fide purchaser for value of Item No.3? 8) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 9) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? 10) To what share, if any, is plaintiff entitled and in which of the properties? 11) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial, the deceased plaintiff was examined as PW-1, and also examined PWs.2 to 5, and filed Exs.A.1 to A.9. The 2nd defendant examined herself as DW-1, and the 3rd defendant examined as DW-2, and filed Exs.B.1 to B.14. 10. 11) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial, the deceased plaintiff was examined as PW-1, and also examined PWs.2 to 5, and filed Exs.A.1 to A.9. The 2nd defendant examined herself as DW-1, and the 3rd defendant examined as DW-2, and filed Exs.B.1 to B.14. 10. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree as stated above, the plaintiff preferred the appeal contending that the Judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, and that the evidence is not properly appreciated, that the trial Court erred in holding that the plaintiff has to prove the transactions in respect of Item Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule property; that the Court below failed to appreciate that the said properties were acquired with the joint family nucleus and hence they are the joint family properties. It is further contended that the 2nd defendant having married late Ramaswamy Reddy when his marriage with Defendant No.1 was subsisting is a bigamous marriage and the 2nd defendant cannot be treated as legally wedded wife of the said Ramaswamy Reddy, and consequently she is not entitled to succeed to the properties. 11. The points that arise for consideration are as to:- 1) Whether the Item Nos. 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property are the self-acquired properties of late Ramaswamy Reddy or whether it is joint family properties and liable to be partitioned as claimed by the plaintiff?. 2) Whether the 2nd defendant can be treated as wife of late Ramaswamy Reddy? 3) Whether the Judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside, modified or varied? 12. POINT No.1: Suit for partition of four items of the property, which are shown as Schedules 1 to 4 in the schedule appended to the plaint. Item No.1 is 64 cents of land; Item No.2 is the house bearing No.13-71; Item No.3 is another House bearing No.13-74; and Item No.4 is a vacant site, admeasuring 41 feet x 22 feet. They are all situated in Chittoor district. The plaintiff, who examined himself as PW.1, is claiming half share in each of the items. So far as Item No.4 is concerned, it is the case of both the parties that half of it has been mortgaged by PW.1, and the remaining half has been sold by Defendant No.2. Therefore, Item No.4 is not in issue. 13. The plaintiff, who examined himself as PW.1, is claiming half share in each of the items. So far as Item No.4 is concerned, it is the case of both the parties that half of it has been mortgaged by PW.1, and the remaining half has been sold by Defendant No.2. Therefore, Item No.4 is not in issue. 13. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff, both in his pleadings and in evidence is to the following effect. Firstly, the facts, which are either admitted, or are not seriously controverted, or though denied but admitted during the course of evidence, may be stated. Krishnaswamy Reddy was a Forester and he died in 1965 as pensioner. Krishnaswamy Reddy had another brother by name Srinivasa Reddy. Their father Ramaswamy Reddy left behind some properties, which were partitioned between Krishnaswamy Reddy and Srinivasa Reddy under registered Partition Deed dt. 21.05.1945 (Ex.A.1). Krishnaswamy Reddy first married one Thulasamma, who died in 1941 after giving birth to one son Dr. V Ramaswamy Reddy and another daughter. After the death of Thulasamma, Krishnaswamy Reddy married another woman and it appears that she died. Thereafter, Krishnaswamy Reddy married Venkata Ramanamma, who also died in 1970, after giving birth to the plaintiff/PW.1 and another daughter. Venkata Ramaswamy Reddy, for short Dr.VRS Reddy and plaintiff/PW.1 are the step brothers. Dr.VRS Reddy originally started his carrier as a Teacher, but after a year or two discontinued the same and became a Registered Medical Practitioner. He had been practising medicine since 1943 or so. In those days, there was dearth of the medical parishioners. Dr.VRS Reddy flourished in his medical practice and earned good name and fortune. The plaintiff/PW.1 joined as a Forester in 1954. Dr.VRS Reddy died on 9.9.1968. The 1st defendant Managamma was married to Dr.VRS Reddy in or about 1940-41 and she lived with him for about a year or two and thereafter deserted him and started living with another person and also begot children. She has remained ex parte through out the proceedings. Defendant No.2-Rathnamma, who was a nurse by profession, started living with Dr. VRS Reddy from 1945. Dr.VRS Reddy did not beget any children through either of the women. Defendant Nos.3 to 9 are the purchasers of the plaint schedule properties from Defendant No.2. 14. She has remained ex parte through out the proceedings. Defendant No.2-Rathnamma, who was a nurse by profession, started living with Dr. VRS Reddy from 1945. Dr.VRS Reddy did not beget any children through either of the women. Defendant Nos.3 to 9 are the purchasers of the plaint schedule properties from Defendant No.2. 14. The contentious aspect, however, is that according to the plaintiff/PW.1, Items 1 to 3 are the joint family properties acquired by his father Krishnaswamy Reddy from out of the income, which he derived from the joint family properties, though, nominally the sale deeds were obtained in the name of VRS Reddy, he being the elder son and was managing the affairs of the property during the minority of the plaintiff/PW.1. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, he is entitled to half share in the Items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties. This contention of the plaintiff is refuted, not by the Defendant No.1 but by the Defendant No.2 contending that the properties that fell to the share of Krishnaswamy Reddy in the partition under Ex.A.1 were sold away by him during his life time. That apart there was no income from the joint family properties and there was no nucleus for acquisition of Items 1 to 3. It is contended that Items 1 to 3 are the self-acquired properties of Dr.VRS Reddy under the registered documents, out of his own income and that they are not at all the joint family properties liable to be partitioned amongst the plaintiff and Dr.VRS Reddy. 15. Insofar as Item No.3 of the suit schedule property is concerned, it is admitted by the plaintiff as well as his witnesses that the said property originally belongs to one Puli Ranga Reddy, who was the maternal uncle of Dr.VRS Reddy and the said Puli Ranga Reddy has executed a registered Will Deed, Ex.B.1 on 27.07.1947 and in pursuance to the said Will Dr.VRS Reddy became the owner of the said property. Since this aspect is admitted by the plaintiff/PW.1 and other witnesses, it can straight away be said that by no stretch of imagination can Item No.3 of suit schedule property be treated as joint family property in as much as the said property has been bequeathed by Puli Ranga Reddy under Ex.B.1 in favour of Dr.VRS Reddy. Since this aspect is admitted by the plaintiff/PW.1 and other witnesses, it can straight away be said that by no stretch of imagination can Item No.3 of suit schedule property be treated as joint family property in as much as the said property has been bequeathed by Puli Ranga Reddy under Ex.B.1 in favour of Dr.VRS Reddy. Items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties are admittedly acquired in the name of Dr.VRS Reddy. Item No.2 is purchased by Dr.VRS Reddy from one Puli Rajamma under a registered sale deed dt. 12.02.1953, which is marked as Ex.B.2. Similarly, Item No.1 of the suit schedule property was purchased by Dr.VRS Reddy under registered sale deed, dt. 12.06.1948 under Ex.B.3 from one Kuppamma. As already noticed Dr.VRS Reddy had a flourishing medical practice since about 1943. Both items1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties were acquired under registered sale deeds in the year 1948 and 1953. In order to treat these two properties liable to be partitioned, it is incumbent on the part of the plaintiff to show that the consideration for the said properties was paid from out of the joint family nucleus, so as to treat it as joint family properties irrespective of the fact that these properties were acquired under Registered instruments by Dr.VRS Reddy in his own name. The plaintiff/PW.1 miserably failed to show existence of any such joint family nucleus or any joint family property from out of which Dr.VRS Reddy was deriving income for acquiring Items 1 and 2 of the suit schedule property. It is the categorical and specific admission of PW.1 that their father Krishnaswamy Reddy, who got some properties in partition under Ex.A.1, from his brother Srinivasa Reddy was sold away by the said Krishnaswamy Reddy in 1951 or 1952 itself. It is the categorical and specific admission of PW.1 that their father Krishnaswamy Reddy, who got some properties in partition under Ex.A.1, from his brother Srinivasa Reddy was sold away by the said Krishnaswamy Reddy in 1951 or 1952 itself. When Krishnaswamy Reddy has sold away the properties, which he got in partition from his brother and if other properties were acquired by one of the sons of Krishnaswamy Reddy, in the absence of any evidence that the funds that were obtained from disposing of the ancestral property were utilised for acquiring the properties standing in the name of Dr.VRS Reddy, it cannot be said that Item 1 and 2 of the suit schedule property were acquired by Krishnaswamy Reddy from out of joint family nucleus, but the sale deeds thereof, namely Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.3, were obtained nominally in the name of Dr.VRS Reddy. 16. The testimony of PW.1/plaintiff falsifies his own case as propounded in the plaint. PW.1 admits that under Ex.B.2, registered sale deed dt. 12.02.53, the scheduled item was purchased by his brother from Rajamma. He also admits that the other schedule of the property was purchased by his brother Dr.VRS Reddy under Ex.B.3 from one Kuppamma. It is in the evidence of PW.1 that in partition his father got about 1 or 2 acres of land under Ex.A.1, and that his father sold the entire property, which he got under Ex.A.1 in 1951/1952. PW.1/plaintiff further reiterated that his father did not retain any of the ancestral properties, that his father sold land on his behalf also even though he was a minor boy and that his father has not even kept any cash in the bank. PW.1 further admits that he has not collected any documents to show that the plaint schedule properties were acquired by his father in the name of his brother Dr.VRS Reddy. PW.1 admits that his brother Dr.VRS Reddy had a good name in Chittoor and that he has been practicing medicine since 1943. PW.1 also admits about the Puli Ranga Reddy his maternal uncle bequeathing Item No.3 of the suit schedule property in favour of his brother Dr.VRS Reddy under a Will deed dt. 21.07.1947, Ex.B1. 17. PW.1 admits that his brother Dr.VRS Reddy had a good name in Chittoor and that he has been practicing medicine since 1943. PW.1 also admits about the Puli Ranga Reddy his maternal uncle bequeathing Item No.3 of the suit schedule property in favour of his brother Dr.VRS Reddy under a Will deed dt. 21.07.1947, Ex.B1. 17. Another material admission from the mouth of plaintiff/PW.1 is that Item No.2 of the suit schedule property was leased to a tenant, who filed O.S.NO.408 of 1970 and in that suit the Court held that the plaintiff had no right in Item No.2 of the suit schedule property. In view of the above categorical admissions, which are having direct bearing on the point in controversy any amount of evidence to the contra will not help the plaintiff in support of his contention that the suit schedule properties were acquired in the name of Dr.VRS Reddy from out of joint family nucleus and that those sale deeds were obtained nominally in the name of Dr.VRS Reddy so as to hold that he is entitled to half share therein. 18. Upon carefully perusing the evidence on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the Items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property. The trial Court has minutely discussed the oral and documentary evidence on this aspect and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief insofar as these three items are concerned. The said findings are in accordance with the evidence on record and based upon proper appreciation of the evidence. This point is answered accordingly. 19. POINT No.2: Lot of controversy is raised between the parties with regard to the nature of relationship in between Defendant No.1 - Mangamma and Defendant No.2 Rathnamma vis--vis Dr.VRS Reddy. According to the plaintiff, his brother Dr.VRS Reddy married Defendant No.1 Mangamma in or about 1940 and she is still alive. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that Defendant No.2, who has nothing to do with Dr.VRS Reddy started meddling with the properties, and, in fact disposed of all the schedule properties after the death of Dr.VRS Reddy. According to the plaintiff, his brother Dr.VRS Reddy married Defendant No.1 Mangamma in or about 1940 and she is still alive. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that Defendant No.2, who has nothing to do with Dr.VRS Reddy started meddling with the properties, and, in fact disposed of all the schedule properties after the death of Dr.VRS Reddy. On the other hand, as already noticed Defendant No.1 did not contest the proceedings and it is the contention of Defendant No.2 that in 1945 Dr.VRS Reddy married her and she has lived with him till his death in the year 1968. It is her case that as they were not blessed with children, they have adopted her sisters daughter by name Anuradha, who is presently practising medicine in Chittoor. A feeble attempt was made by the plaintiff to demonstrate that Defendant No.2 had nothing to do with his brother Dr.VRS Reddy. But, however, the evidence that is placed on record by himself and on his behalf clearly show that from 1945 onwards Dr.VRS Reddy had been living with Defendant No.2. Not only the other witnesses but even the plaintiff himself as PW.1 made the admissions, which clearly show that Dr.VRS Reddy and Defendant No.2 were living together from 1945 till 1968 when Dr.VRS Reddy died. In his evidence as PW.1, initially, the plaintiff denied knowledge as to whether Dr.VRS Reddy is the second wife of Dr.VRS Reddy. He, however, admits that as a widow of Dr.VRS Reddy, Defendant No.2 is claiming title in the property, and in fact, has alienated all the properties. Curiously, PW.1 deposed that he do not know whether Defendant No.2 is only the wife of Dr.VRS Reddy, but admitted that Dr.VRS Reddy and Defendant No.2 have adopted one Anuradha, as they did not have children and that the said adopted-daughter is presently working as Doctor in Chittoor. In the cross- examination, the plaintiff as PW.1 admits that his sister Thayaramma is being looked after and maintained by Defendant No.2. Insofar as Defendant No.1 is concerned, the plaintiff admits that Defendant No.1 married one Kuppa Reddy on 28.8.1942. In the cross- examination, the plaintiff as PW.1 admits that his sister Thayaramma is being looked after and maintained by Defendant No.2. Insofar as Defendant No.1 is concerned, the plaintiff admits that Defendant No.1 married one Kuppa Reddy on 28.8.1942. The nature evidence of PW.1 is such that it leaves no room for any doubt that Defendant No.1 having married Dr.VRS Reddy in 1940 has left him and married another person Kuppa Reddy in 1942 and from 1945 onwards, Defendant No.2 had been living with Dr.VRS Reddy till his death in 1968. 20. PW.2 claims to be a person, who is looking after the present litigation on behalf of the plaintiff. Previously he also worked as a Police Constable. He deposed that Defendant No.1 is the widow of Dr.VRS Reddy, but he do knot know whether they had any children. He further admitted that Defendant No.1 is living in Narakayala Kuppam. He further admitted that the plaintiff had a sister by name Thayaramma and that the said Thayaramma was living with Defendant No.2 for the last six or seven years. PW.2 corroborates PW.1 and admits that Defendant No.1 married one Kuppa Reddy in 1946, and Defendant No.2 was living with Dr.VRS Reddy from 1948 and that he came to know about this fact when he visited Dr.VRS Reddy at that time. He also admits that the Revenue authorities issued a legal heir certificate in favour of Defendant No.2 certifying that she is the widow of Dr.VRS Reddy. The significant statement from the mouth of PW.2 is to the effect that about ten years prior to filing of the suit i.e., in or about 1977 he mediated and asked Defendant No.2 to give at least one ancestral house to the plaintiff for which she did not agree and thereafter the plaintiff was advised to file the suit, which, however is not the suit in hand. If really Defendant No.2 had nothing to do with Dr.VRS Reddy, the plaintiff and his supporting witness-PW.2 would not have approached Defendant No.2 and requested her to give at least one ancestral house to the plaintiff and on that being refused, a suit having been filed. The further admission of PW.2 is to the effect that it is Defendant No.2, who bore all the expenses of cremation and obsequies of Dr.VRS Reddy. The further admission of PW.2 is to the effect that it is Defendant No.2, who bore all the expenses of cremation and obsequies of Dr.VRS Reddy. He further admits that Dr.VRS Reddy has purchased the property in the name of Defendant No.2, as she is his wife. 21. PW.3 is another elder person and it is in his evidence that Defendant No.1 is wife of Dr.VRS Reddy whereas Defendant No.2 is the mistress of Dr.VRS Reddy. In the cross-examination, however, PW.3 admits that the Defendant No.1 is living as the wife of one Govinda Reddy in Bommasamudram and that he heard that she has begotten children through the said Govinda Reddy. PW.3 further admits that Defendant No.1 is living with the said Govinda Reddy for more than 30 years, and that Defendant No.2 is living with Dr.VRS Reddy as his wife from 1945 onwards. He further admits that Defendant No.1 having married Dr.VRS Reddy in 1940 lived with him just for two or three years, and thereafter she left him in 1942. PW.3 reiterates that it is Defendant No.2, who is living with Dr.VRS Reddy from 1945 onwards. 22. A perusal of the above evidence establishes the fact that Defendant No.1 married Dr.VRS Reddy in 1940 and lived with him just for a period of one or two years and deserted him in 1942, and thereafter she married one Kuppa Reddy or Govinda Reddy and had been living with the said person for more than 30 years. The evidence also shows that it is Defendant No.2, who had been living with Dr.VRS Reddy from 1945 and it is she, who has incurred all the expenses of the cremation and obsequies of Dr.VRS Reddy when he died in September 1968. The evidence clearly show that Dr.VRS Reddy and Defendant No.2 had been living together as man and wife for about 23 years. The evidence also shows that the first wife of Dr.VRS Reddy i.e., Defendant No.1, is no way concerned whatsoever with Dr.VRS Reddy from 1942 onwards and as a matter fact she has married another person, namely Govinda Reddy/Kuppa Reddy. 23. The evidence also shows that the first wife of Dr.VRS Reddy i.e., Defendant No.1, is no way concerned whatsoever with Dr.VRS Reddy from 1942 onwards and as a matter fact she has married another person, namely Govinda Reddy/Kuppa Reddy. 23. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant while conceding the legal proposition that in such a factual scenario a presumption about the existence of a valid marriage between Dr.VRS Reddy and Defendant No.2 can be drawn, but the learned counsel submits that such a presumption is possible only when Dr.VRS Reddy had no other wife living at a point of time when he started living with Defendant No.2. The contention of the learned counsel is that when Dr.VRS Reddy could not validly contact the marriage with Defendant No.2 in view of the subsistence of his marriage with Defendant No.1, there is no question of there being any presumption being drawn in favour of Defendant No.2, as she has been living with Dr.VRS Reddy as wife. The learned counsel is fortified in his submission by a decision of our High Court reported in Dulavayi Nagarajamma v. State Bank of India & Others, AIR 1961 AP 320 wherein it was held that there is no dispute that the presumption of law is in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman cohabit continuously for a long number of years. It is further held that but when a person is already married, no presumption of a second marriage arises by reason of long cohabitation. In nut shell the contention of the learned counsel is that so long as Defendant No.1 is alive or the marriage in between Dr.VRS Reddy and Defendant No.1 is not dissolved, as per the procedure established by law, there cannot be any marriage in between Dr.VRS Reddy and Defendant No.2 and therefore the presumption of treating Defendant No.2 as the wife of Dr.VRS Reddy does not arise. This submission of the learned counsel no doubt seems attractive, but the facts of the present case do not justify the said submission. This submission of the learned counsel no doubt seems attractive, but the facts of the present case do not justify the said submission. The plaintiff as well as his own witnesses admit that Defendant No.1 having married Dr.VRS Reddy in 1940 deserted him within a year or two, and thereafter had been living with some other person, and as a matter of fact there is evidence to the effect that Defendant No.1 married another person in or about 1942 or 1943. When Defendant No.1 married another person, the presumption inevitably is that the marriage in between Defendant No.1 and Dr.VRS Reddy should dissolved and she can no more be treated as the wife of Dr.VRS Reddy. Only three years thereafter i.e., Defendant No.1 marrying another person, it is the case of Defendant No.2 that Dr.VRS Reddy married her. 24. Strikingly, similar facts were before the Apex Court in a decision rendered by a three Judge Bench in Soba Hymatavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy, 2005(2) SCC 244 where Shoba Hymavathi Devi was the appellant. She claimed to be the daughter of one Murahari Rao and Smt.Simhachalam. The contention that her mother Smt. Simhachalam was previously married to one Appala Swamy and therefore she could not contract a valid marriage with Murahari Rao, the father of the appellant. It is also contended that her father Murahari Rao was also married to one Kalavathi. The Supreme Court of India in Para-6 of the Judgment made the following observations: We may also incidentally notice that even assuming that there was any earlier marriage between Simhachalam, the mother of the appellant and Ladda Appala Swamy at a time when Simhachalam was allegedly eight years old, the same also can be presumed to have been terminated especially in the context of the subsequent long cohabitation of Murahari Rao and Simhachalam and the evidence on the side of the appellant herself that the alleged marriage between Simhachalam and Ladda Appala Swamy was when Simhachalam was eight years old; that the said marriage was never consummated and that Simhachalam had left Ladda Appala Swamy immediately after marriage and had never lived with him. The Supreme Court further observed that it is not disputed that divorce are permitted in the community and the Supreme Court held that there was a valid marriage between Murahari Rao and Simhachalam, the parents of the appellant. 25. The Supreme Court further observed that it is not disputed that divorce are permitted in the community and the Supreme Court held that there was a valid marriage between Murahari Rao and Simhachalam, the parents of the appellant. 25. Bearing in mind the above observations of the Supreme Court, it can be said that though Defendant No.1 married Dr.VRS Reddy in 1940, there is evidence to the effect that she deserted him immediately thereafter and married another person and started living with the said person. Therefore, the marriage in between Defendant No.1 and Dr.VRS Reddy can be presumed to have been terminated, in view of the fact that the evidence clearly show that Defendant No.1 had been living with other person from 1943 onwards and that Dr.VRS Reddy and Defendant No.2 had been living together from 1945 onwards. 26. In view of the above, I see no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the presumption, which is available in favour of a marriage and against concubinage cannot be extended to the case in hand. On the other hand, it is held that the evidence on record clearly show that the marriage between Dr.VRS Reddy and Defendant No.1 should be treated as terminated in view of the fact that by deserting Dr.VRS Reddy, Defendant No.1 herself married another person in or about 1942 and had been living with that person through out. The evidence also shows that it is Defendant No.2, who had been living with Dr.VRS Reddy for more than 23 years and she has not only taken care of the person and properties of Dr.VRS Reddy, but was also taking care of the sister of Dr.VRS Reddy by name Thayaramma. All the original title deeds of the properties, standing in the name of Dr.VRS Reddy, have been produced by Defendant No.2. Admittedly, it is Defendant No.2, who has incurred the expenses for not only the treatment of Dr.VRS Reddy but also his cremation and obsequies. The cumulative result is that Defendant No.2 can be presumed to be the wife of Dr.VRS Reddy in view of her living with Dr.VRS Reddy for substantially long period and of not only the plaintiff but also the witnesses, who were examined on his behalf speak about the fact that they had been dealing with Defendant No.2 in respect of the properties of Dr.VRS Reddy. The point is answered accordingly. 27. Point No.3: The Judgment under appeal is based on proper appreciation of the factual and legal aspects, warranting no interference. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 28. In the result appeal, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed, confirming the Judgment and decree of the trial Court.