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

2002 Supreme(AP) 1013

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : T.CH.SURYA RAO
Pradeep Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Mahaveer pershad - Respondent
Decided On : 08-26-02

Headnote:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, Or14, Rule 1 - BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988, Sec4(3) - EVIDENCE ACT, Secs93 to 97 - Framing of issues - Plaintiff claims to be adopted son - No issue framed in this regard - Both parties led evidence on the plea of factum of adoption - Formal requirement of an issue being framed can be relaxed

       Evidence Act - Interpretation and construction of documents - In case of patent ambiguity, no extrinsic evidence is permissible and in case of latent ambiguity extrinsic evidence may be given - “Pleadings of parties form the foundation of their case and it is not open to them to give up the case set up in pleadings and propound a new and different case” - Oral evidence contrary to pleadings cannot be considered

       Benami transactions - Plea of benami - Burden of proof - Stated - Plea that property purchased benami in the name of adopted son who becomes coparcener of Hindu Undivided Family - Prohibition contained in sub-sections (1) & (2) of Sec4 of Act, not applicable in view of that plea

       Maxim - “Falsa demonstratio non nocet cum de corpore constat” - Applicability - Stated - False description does not vitiate - An instrument will not necessarily fall or become inoperative because it contains an inaccurate or false description

T. SURYA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful defendants 1 and 7 have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29-7-1993 passed by the learned 1st Additional Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O. S. No. 754 of 1983. The plaintiff is the first respondent and the defendants 2 to 6 are the respondents 2 to 6 herein.

( 2 ) THE suit O. S. No. 754 of 1983 was filed for declaraion that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property, for recovery of possession thereof, for arrears of rent, and for profits. It was decreed declaing the right and title of the plaintiff; for consequential possession; and for mesne profits from 2-5-1982 onwards till the date of realisation, while denying the relief of recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff filed cross-objections as against that part of the decree whereunder the relief for arrears of rent was denied.

( 3 ) THE factual matrix may be set forth at the outset thus : The plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the northern portion of three storeyed building ad measuring 94 square yards within the premises bearing mc No. 5-8-110 situate at Nampally in hyderabad, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 27-2-1971 from one Sakinder Begum; and that the southern portion thereof belongs to his adoptive mother by name Triveni Bai wife of madanlal. The said Madanlal was the President of the first defendant-Trust known as triveni Bhavan Trust. The southern portion of the building was given in trust for establishing a dharma Sala. The Trust wanted to establish a hospital in the year 1979. Therefore, under an oral agreement of tenancy with effect from 1-10-1979 the president of the Trust obtained the plaintiffs portion i. e. northern portion of the suit building on a monthly rent of Rs. l,000. 00 for the said purpose under the name and style of Triveni Madanlal Charitable Hosptal in the whole of the building including the southern portion. Apart from the rent, it was agreed to bear and pay the electricity and water charges, and property tax. However, since the date of tenancy i. e. from 1-10-1979 the defendants committed default despite the request of the plaintiff. When the rents had not been paid, the plaintiff got a notice of termination of tenancy dated 20-12-1981 issued to the defendants determining the tenancy with effect from 1-2-1982. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed rent for a period of three years towards arrears and the profits from 1-2-1982 till realisation. The plaintiff further claims that since the build ing was constructed in the year 1966, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1961 do not apply.

( 4 ) THE suit was resisted by the first defendant-Trust by filing a written statement and the defendants 2 to 7 being the trustees thereof adopted the same. It is averred inter alia in the written statement that the entire triple-storied building bearing MC No. 5-8-110 ad measuring 358 square yards including the open land was purchased by late Smt. Triveni Bai wife of Madanlal out of their own funds under two separate registered sale deeds of even date i. e. 27-2-1971 one in the name of Triveni Bai and other in the name of minor plaintiff as a benamidar. The plaintiff being a minor by then had no financial capacity to purchase the suit property as claimed by him. Husband of the said Triveni Bai by name madanlal purchased the vacant land which is part and parcel of the entire building bearing MC No. 5-8-110 under a registered sale deed dated 3-3-1971. Later, he sold that property in favour of his wife Triveni Bai under a registered sale deed dated 5-11-1971. Late Triveni Bai constructed mulgies in that premises. She expressed her intention to use the entire property for charitable purposes as well as to instal a temple. She installed two idols of Lord Siva and Lord hanumanji after constructing the temple and made sankalpa. After her death, her husband-Madanlal, the plaintiff, and the daughter crea
































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 Back to top