a suit for a declaration that he is the close and sole legal heir to the properties of late D.V.S. Tirupati Rao – The plaintiff is the son of D.V. Ranga Rayanim varu, the brother of late D.V.S. Tirupati Rao. The said Sri D.V.S. Tirupati Rao, Sri D. Rama Rayanim varu and D.V. Ranga Rayanim varu were the three sons of one Sri D. Kodanda Ramasway Nayanim varu. – One Sri D.V.S. Tirupati Rao, his wife and three daughters hailing from a well known family committed suicide by setting themselves on fire on 21.02.1994. – Just before the death, the deceased daughters of D.V.S. Tirupati Rao wrote three documents (Exs.B.1 to B.3) by which they purported to give their properties to the deities mentioned therein. –
The court below considered the entire evidence and contents of the documents. From a reading of the documents Exs.B.1 to B.3, it is clear that they were executed just before the family committed suicide. The family was conscious of the fact that the death was imminent. Both the
sisters clearly mentioned in their documents that they are self-immolating themselves and unifying themselves with Lord Venkateshwara Swamy. They have also stated clearly
that these documents are being written just before their death and if there are any mistakes, the same should be overlooked. It is also mentioned that there are no legal heirs and the
property should go to the deities mentioned therein. Therefore, on a plain and liberal reading of these documents, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of the lower Court that these are dedications and not a gift in the legal sense or a will is correct. Even the ultimate survivor, as per the legal fiction of Section 21 of the Hindu Succession Act, is the last sister D. Rekha Devi. By operation of this section, she should be treated as sole surviving coparcener and therefore, the
contents of Ex.B.3 by which the entire property is dedicated to Sri Venkateshwara Swamy varu and to Sri Kalahasti Eswara is held to be a valid dedication. – This Court agrees that Exs.B.1 to B.3 are valid and that they constitute a dedication in favour of the second defendant. Therefore, in this case, there is no devolution of the property by virtue of Section 29 of Hindu Succession Act.