Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.K.SOMASEKHARA
Yarlagadda Venkakka Choudary (dead) - Appellant
Versus
Daggubati Lakshminarayana (dead) - Respondent
Decided On : 03-31-95
Suit for possession of suit schedule lands, for past mesne profits for a period of three years, for future mesne profits after enquiry, for costs and for such other reliefs as the Court may deem fit to grant in the nature of the case. Suit was dismissed with costs. Plaintiffs preferred this appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed of recovery of possession of the suit schedule lands, for past mesne profits for a period of three years, for future mesne profits after enquiry, for costs and for such other reliefs as the Court may deem fit to grant in the nature of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief in the suit and the learned Sub judge has rightly dismissed the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the gift deed dated 12-4-1957 was executed nominally to avoid the land ceiling or agricultural holdings as pleaded by the 1st defendant and whether such gift is maintainable at all? 2. Whether the gift deed dated 12-4-57 is a colourable and nominal transaction, and whether it is not acted upon as pleaded by the defendants? 3. Whether the 1st plaintiff and his wife represented to the alienees that the gift deed was only a sham and nominal one and that they have no title to the suit schedule properties and if so, whether the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the validity of the alienations? 4. Whether the plaintiffs and late Rajamma acquiesced in sales in favour of the alienees? 5. Whether the defendants 6 to 15 and 17 to 19 are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of any alleged defect in the title of the 1st defendant? 6. Whether the conveyances and contracts executed by defendants 1 to 5 in favour of defendants 6 to 19 are true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs? 7. Whether the plaintiffs have no title to the suit schedule properties? 8. Whether the defendants acquired title to the suit schedule properties by prescription and pleaded by them? 9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of suit schedule properties and if so, to what profits they are entitled? 10. Whether the court fee paid is correct? 11. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties?
Ratio Decidendi: The suit is for possession based on title and therefore, it is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The period of limitation for such a suit is 12 years when the possession of the defendants became adverse to the plaintiffs. Patently neither Rajamma nor plaintiffs were in possession of the suit lands within 12 years next before the suit. Strictly speaking/ it ran to commence from the year 1925 when the gift is said to have been conferred on rajamma towards Pasupukunkurna. Even assuming that it commenced from the date of Ex. A3 viz. , 12-4-1957, the period of limitation ended on 12-4-1969. The cause of action for the suit mentioned in the plaint is the death of Rajamma in October, 1968. The date of suit is 17-9-1971. In all cases of bar of limitation in any manner including the prescription or adverse possession, the rule of tacking operates.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs of the defendants, (respondents) throughout.
( 1 ) THE judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge, Chirala (Mr. B. Eswara reddy) in O. S. No. 61 of 1971 dated 9-3-1981 are challenged in this appeal. The suit was dismissed with costs. Obviously aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellants who are the plaintiffs in the suit preferred this appeal. The respondents are the defendants. There are two plaintiffs and 26 defendants in the suit. Defendant No. l died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 2 to 26 were brought on record as the legal representatives of defendant No. 1. Convenience warrants to refer the parties as plaintiffs and defendants.
( 2 ) THE suit was filed of recovery of possession of the suit schedule lands, for past mesne profits for a period of three years, for future mesne profits after enquiry, for costs and for such other reliefs as the Court may deem fit to grant in the nature of the case.
The suit schedule lands are subjected to the plaint schedule as follows:
1.
D. No346/3
Seri dry land measuring
Ac. 4. 40
2.
D. No. 331/2
-do-
Ac. 4. 49
3.
D. No. 477
Seri wet land
Ac. 4. 21
4.
D. No. 481/3
-do-
Ac. 0. 50
5.
D. No. 142/1
-do-
Ac. 3. 86
Total
Ac. 17. 46
all the defendants resisted the suit. Defendants 1,6 to 12,14,16 to19 filed individual written statements, where as defendants 2,3,4/5,13, and 15 filed joint written statement. Defendant No. 17 adopted the written statement of defendant No. 18 and defendants 13 and 15 adopted the written statement of defendant No. 1. The other defendants have not filed any written statement certain facts in the pleadings find no controversy. Plaintiff No. 2 is the son of plaintiff No. 1 Defendant No. l is the only son of one late Daggubati chowdaramma (refers to a man, but not a woman ). Rajamma is his sole daughter and the sister of defendant No. 1. She was married to the first plaintiff in the year 1925. Chowdaramma died in or about the year 1938 and Rajamma died in October, 1968. The relationship between the family of the plaintiffs and chowdaramma including defendant No. 1 was quite cordial till some time prior to the date of the suit.
( 3 ) THE plaintiffs alleged that the suit lands originally belonged to one daggubati Chowdaramma the father of defendant No. l who is said to be a rich landlord owing extensive properties. Defendant No. 1 has denied it to the extent that the suit lands belonged to Daggubati Chowdaramma only that it belonged to the joint family of his father Chowdaramma and himself and after his death the joint family properties devolved upon him as the sole surviving coparcener. The plaintiffs have alleged that the suit lands were given as a marriage gift to rajamma by way of "pasupukunkuma" by her father chowdaramma, she being his only daughter, as is usual among the affluent kamma families and that they were in her possession and enjoyment. It is further alleged that during the year 1953 plaintiff No. 1 along with his wife rajamma left for Madras and settled down there where he acquired extensive properties. Therefore the management of the suit lands was entrusted to defendant No. l who used to send the income to Rajamma. It appears that rajamma felt that it would be better in the Interest of all the concerned to have a registered instrument evidencing the gift and defendant No. l executed a registered gift deed in favour of Yarlagadda Rajamma regarding the suit properties on 12-4-1957. Rajamma continued to enjoy the proceeds from the lands almost till her death. It appears that she did not bother much to know about the details of the income in view of her immense affection for her brother the 1st defendant. It appears that defendant No. l was sending the income to rajamma through Y. Ranganayakulu who is the brother of the 1st plaintiff. It was alleged that the gift was a compieted transaction. Defendant No. 1 and other defendants who have adopted and followed him, have denied all these allegations. The custom of giving gift by way of Pasupukunkuma during the ti
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
