SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(AP) 430

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.S.NARAYANA
Kunche China Mangamma - Appellant
Versus
Koolapu Mangamma (died) - Respondent
Decided On : 04-28-05

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code,1908 - order 22 Rule 4 - Section 35-A - Transfer of property Act - Sections 122, 123 and 126 - Specific relief Act - Section 31 - Indian Contract Act - Sections 17 and 19 - Evidence Act - Sections 65, 67 and 68 - Preliminary decree - Partition of property - Allotments and for delivery - Daughters had entered into this legal battle in relation to properties left by deceased claiming by virtue of settlement deeds and the others denying same and claiming under a will -Yet another daughter pre-deceased said and it is stated that she is a divorcee and left no heirs and this aspect is not in serious controversy - Preliminary decree for partition of property covered by plaint schedule into five equal shares and to allot one such share to her and also for appointment of Commissioner to partition property and also praying for a decree for future profits to be determined by Commissioner and for such other suitable reliefs - Subsequent thereto wife of deceased who is also no more since she died during pendency of litigation and no L. Rs. as such were brought on record may be for the reason that all the L. Rs. already are on record - Plaint schedule as per bequeaths made by late his last will by making certain allotments and for delivery of the entire – Held, Facts and circumstances of this case - Court is of the considered opinion that even Ex. B-4 would not stand to the legal scrutiny relating to voluntary testamentary disposition of veerayya at relevant point of time in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances and hence the said findings of the Court below are liable to be set aside and it is needless to say that fact that yet another will subsequent to Ex. B-4 had not been proved at all may be in the light of subsequent settlement deeds on which strong reliance was placed by P. W. 1 who died intestate leaving behind him his wife and daughters and since one of the daughters predeceased him and the wife also died during pendency of litigation the rest of the four daughters would be entitled to equal share in all the properties left by him by intestate succession - Representing the branch of other four daughters would be entitled to equal shares of 1/4th each in all properties which had been left by the deceased by operation of intestate succession - Preliminary decree is granted for partition to divide all properties left by amongst all the four daughters equally taking good and bad qualities into consideration - Decrees made in o. S. No. 108/86 and O. S. No. 205/85 are accordingly - Appeals and the Cross- objections are partly allowed

P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) THE daughters of Kollapu Veerayya kollapu China Mangamma, Pinipe mallamma, Juthuka Ramudu, Kunche saraswati, had entered into this legal battle in relation to the properties left by the deceased Kollapu Veerayya - Kunche China mangamma claiming by virtue of settlement deeds and the others denying the same and claiming under a will. Yet another daughter suryakantham, pre-deceased the said kollapu Veerayya and it is stated that she is a divorcee and left no heirs and this aspect is not in serious controversy. O. S. No. 202/85 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, rajahmundry was filed by Kunche Chinna mangamma praying for passing of a preliminary decree for partition of property covered by plaint schedule into five equal shares and to allot one such share to her and also for appointment of Commissioner to partition the property and also praying for a decree for future profits to be determined by the Commissioner and for such other suitable reliefs. Subsequent thereto, the wife of the deceased Veerayya, Kollapu Mangamma, who is also no more since she died during pendency of the litigation and no L. Rs. as such were brought on record, may be for the reason that all the L. Rs. already are on record, and Pinipe Mallamma, Juttiga ramayamma and Kunche Saraswathi filed o. S. No. 108/86 on the file of Additional subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry praying for cancellation of the settlement deeds dated 15-8-1984 and 16-8-1984 purported to have been executed by late Koilapu Veerayya in favour of Kunche China Mangamma and others, the defendants in the said suit, in relation to plaint schedule properties and also for partition of the plaint schedule as per the bequeaths made by late Koilapu Veerayya under his last will dated 4-3-1983 by making certain allotments and for delivery of the entire plaint schedule property to 1 st plaintiff after ejecting the defendants therefrom and to pass a final decree for partition afterthe life time of the 1 st plaintiff and to award future profits to the 1st plaintiff from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession and for other reliefs.

( 2 ) THE learned Additional Subordinate judge, Rajahmundry by Judgment dated 17-9-1996 while answering Issue No. 9 in o. S. No. 108/96 and Issue No. 6 in o. S. No. 202/85 while granting the reliefs in the said suits held as hereunder:" In the result, the settlement deeds dated 15-8-1984 and 16-8-1994 executed by late Koilapu Veerayya in favour of defendants in respect of plaint a schedule property are hereby cancelled and a preliminary decree is passed without costs declaring that the 2nd plaintiff O. S. No. 108/86 is entitled to take Ac. 1 -871/2 cents of land in plaint a schedule property, the 3rd plaintiff is entitled to take possession of ac. 1-871/2 cents in plaint a schedule property and the 4th plaintiff is entitled to take Ac. 1 -371/2 cents of land and the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 108/86 is entitled to take possession of ac. 1-871/2 cents in plaint a schedule property. It is also hereby declared that item No. 1 of plaint b schedule tiled house be divided into 16 parts and the 2nd plaintiff is entitled to take 5 shares and the 4th plaintiff is entitled to take 5 shares and the 3rd plaintiff is entitled to take one share and the D-1 in o. S. No. 108/86 is entitled to take one share and D-5 in O. S. No. 108/96 is entitled to take 4 shares. It is also hereby declared that item No. 2 tiled house be divided into 2 shares and the 3rd plaintiff in O. S. No. 108/86 is entitled to take possession of one such share and the 1 st defendant in O. S. No. 108/86 that is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 202/85 is entitled to take 1/2 share. The rest of the claims are dismissed without costs. "aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in O. S. No. 202/85 on the file of additional Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry had initially preferred A. S. No. 145/97 on the file of District Judge, East Godavari, rajahmundry and in view of the f



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top