VENIGALLA KOTESWARAMMA vs MALAMPATI SURYAMBA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 26

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, DINESH MAHESHWARI, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
VENIGALLA KOTESWARAMMA – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MALAMPATI SURYAMBA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal No. 9546 of 2013
Decided on : 19-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Advocate, Ms. Filza Moonis Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. P. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate, M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Advocate

Headnote:
Agreement for sale - Decreed - Suit for partition - Plaintiff-appellant essentially claimed partition and division of properties left by her step-mother in four equal shares amongst herself and her three siblings, who were arrayed as defendants 1, 2 and 3; and she also claimed other reliefs, including that of mesne profits against other defendants - Siblings of plaintiff-appellant did not contest the suit; rather defendants 2 and 3 filed a written statement of admission - contesting defendants, led by defendant 4, brother of step-mother of plaintiff, alleged that the step-mother of plaintiff had sold Item No. 1 of plaint A Schedule properties to defendant 15 under an agreement for sale dated (Ex. B-10); and that she had also executed a Will dated (Ex. B-9) in favour of her mother and an attendant, defendants 14 and 13 respectively - By way of subsequent pleadings, plaintiff denied and disputed alleged agreement for sale as also alleged Will – Held, In assessment of the High Court, these factors were of no adverse effect and were rather of natural dealings - In Court view, these factors cannot be seen and examined in isolation - Even if each of these factors, by itself, is not decisive of matter, they cumulatively give rise to justified suspicions and when they are juxtaposed with major factors highlighted hereinabove, case of defendants about existence of agreement (Ex. B-10) is knocked to ground - Court are clearly of the view that Trial Court had examined matter in its correct perspective and had rightly come to conclusion that this agreement for sale (Ex. B-10) was as invalid and untrustworthy as was Will (Ex. B-9) - Findings of Trial Court, based on proper analysis and sound reasoning, called for no interference - High Court has been clearly in error in interfering with findings of Trial Court in relation to agreement in question - Appeal succeeds.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

The case involves a dispute over property rights and includes claims for partition, sale, and related reliefs by the plaintiff, who is the step-daughter of the deceased Annapurnamma, against her siblings and other parties (!) (!) .
The primary issues concern the validity of a will and an agreement for sale purportedly executed by Annapurnamma shortly before her death, which significantly impact the rights of the parties involved (!) (!) .
The Trial Court found both the will and the sale agreement to be false and fabricated, concluding that they were not genuine and should not be relied upon (!) (!) .
The Trial Court's findings on the validity of the will and the sale agreement were based on detailed examination of the circumstances, including the suspicious nature of the documents, the manner of execution, and the relationship of the witnesses and beneficiaries involved (!) (!) .
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's rejection of the will, affirming that it was not the true last testament of Annapurnamma, citing suspicious circumstances and procedural irregularities (!) .
Conversely, the High Court accepted the validity of the agreement for sale, reasoning that it was supported by cogent evidence, witnesses' testimonies, and the conduct of the parties involved, and thus was binding on the heirs of Annapurnamma (!) (!) .
The High Court's decision resulted in the property in question being excluded from the partition, based on the validity of the sale agreement (!) .
A significant procedural issue arose because the legal representatives of a deceased respondent (defendant 2) were not substituted in the High Court proceedings, leading to the abatement of the appeal against that respondent and rendering the proceedings against him incompetent (!) (!) .
The abatement of the appeal against the deceased respondent (defendant 2) meant that the subsequent proceedings and the High Court's judgment were not fully applicable or enforceable against his estate, creating irreconcilable inconsistencies with the earlier final decree of the Trial Court (!) .
The appellate court determined that the High Court's decision to proceed with the appeal despite the abatement was legally flawed, and that the finality of the Trial Court's findings against the validity of the agreement and the will should be restored (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the intertwined nature of the disputed documents meant that the invalidity of the will directly affected the credibility of the sale agreement, and the High Court erred in treating them as independent and separately valid (!) (!) .
Overall, procedural lapses and the inconsistent findings regarding the validity of the documents led to the conclusion that the High Court's judgment was unsustainable, and the original Trial Court's findings should be reinstated (!) (!) .
The appeal was ultimately allowed, with the Trial Court’s decree restored, and the property was not to be included in the partition due to the valid sale agreement. The plaintiff was also awarded costs for the litigation (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal implications based on these key points.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Introductory and brief outline

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2009, as passed by the High Court of Judicature for Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in AS No. 1887 of 1998 and arises out of a suit for partition and related reliefs, filed by the plaintiff-appellant in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, being OS No. 35 of 1980 (old OP No. 106 of 1978).

2. Having regard to the circumstances of this case and questions involved, useful it would be to draw a brief outline of the case at the outset.

2.1. In the suit aforesaid, the plaintiff-appellant essentially claimed partition and division of the properties left by her step-mother in four equal shares amongst herself and her three siblings, who were arrayed as defendants 1, 2 and 3; and she also claimed other reliefs, including that of mesne profits against other defendants. The siblings of the plaintiff-appellant did not contest the suit; rather defendants 2 and 3 filed a written statement of admission.

2.2. However, the contesting defendants, led by defendant 4, brother of the step-mother of plaintiff, alleged that the step-mother of plaintiff had sold Item No. 1 of plaint A Schedule properties to defendant 15 under an agreement for sale dated 05.11.1976 (Ex. B-10); and that she had also executed a Will dated 15.06.1978 (Ex. B-9) in favour of her mother and an attendant, defendants 14 and 13 respectively. By way of subsequent pleadings, the plaintiff denied and disputed the alleged agreement for sale as also the alleged Will.

2.3. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court by way of its judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 with specific findings on the principal issues against defendants. The Trial Court held, inter alia, that both the documents, of the alleged agreement for sale and of the alleged Will (Ex. B-10 and Ex. B-9 respectively), were false and fabricated.

2.4. Two regular appeals were filed in the High Court against the decree of the Trial Court: one being AS No. 1887 of 1988 by defendants 16 to 18, who were on record as legal representatives of the deceased defendant 15 (claiming under the alleged agreement for sale); and another being AS No. 1433 of 1989 by defendants 4, 13 and 14 (claiming under the alleged Will). In both the appeals, the principal contesting respondents were the plaintiff and her siblings (defendants 1 to 3), who were arrayed as respondents 1 to 4.

2.5. During pendency of the appeals in High Court, defendant 2, brother of the plaintiff-appellant (who was respondent 3 in those appeals), expired on 09.05.1989. No steps for substitution of his legal representatives were taken in either of the appeals. Cause-title of the impugned judgment gives out that on 25.04.2006, the appeal filed by defendants 4, 13 and 14 (AS No. 1433 of 1989) was dismissed against the deceased defendant 2. However, no such order appears to have been passed in the other appeal (AS No. 1887 of 1988).

2.6. In the aforesaid appeals, questions relating to the alleged agreement for sale and the alleged Will formed the major points for determination of the High Court. In the impugned common judgment and decree dated 20.03.2009, the High Court has affirmed the findings of the Trial Court in relation to the Will in question and has held that the Will was not valid and was not binding on the plaintiff or defendants 1 to 3. However, the High Court has reversed the findings of the Trial Court in relation to the alleged agreement for sale and has held that the same was binding on the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, who were under obligation to execute the sale deed in favour of defendants 16 to 18. In sequel to this, the High Court has also ordered that the property forming the subject matter of the said agreement (Item No. 1 of plaint A Schedule) would not be available for partition and has modified the decree of the Trial Court accordingly.

2.7. Aggrieved by the judgment and d