LOWER COURT’S DECISION

The learned subordinate judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not
established the factum of adoption of venkaya by her husband pitchaya and has
also failed to prove that chimpiriya and pitchiya are divided from each other and
hence dismissed the suit.

HIGH COURT’S DECISION

One more point that was raised before the judges of high court was that the recitals
in the will disclose a clear and unambiguous declaration of the intention of
chimpiya to divide, that the said declaration constituted a severance in a status
enable him to execute a will.
The learned judge rejected the plea namely on two grounds (1) that the will did not
contain any such declaration (2) that if it did, the plaintiff should have claimed the
division of the entire family property i.e., not only the property claimed by
chimpiriyya but also the property alleged to have been given to pitchiyya , and
hence the suit is not maintainable.

APPEAL TO SC WAS ALSO DISMIISED.