Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.RADHA KRISHNA RAO, P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU
Addepalli Venkata Laxmi - Appellant
Versus
Ayinampudi Narasimha Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 09-22-93
FAMILY LAW - HINDU LAW - SUCCESSION - INTESTATE SUCCESSION - DIVISION OF PROPERTY - FAMILY SETTLEMENT - WILL - VALIDITY - EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - ADVERSE POSSESSION - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the division of property among the heirs of a deceased person, Subrahmaniam, who died intestate. The plaintiff, Venkatalaxmi, claimed a share in the property based on a family settlement and a will executed by Veeramma, the first wife of Subrahmaniam. The defendant, Ayinampudi Narasimha Rao, the son of Subrahmaniam and his second wife, Paripurnamma, claimed a share in the property based on his right as a legal heir. Both parties filed suits seeking partition of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the family settlement alleged by the plaintiff was not satisfactorily proved and that the will executed by Veeramma was not valid due to suspicious circumstances and lack of proper execution. The court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the entire property by adverse possession since Veeramma did not acquire absolute title to the entire property. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/20th share in the property, while the defendant was entitled to an 11/20th share.
Issues: 1. Whether the family settlement alleged by the plaintiff was valid and enforceable. 2. Whether the will executed by Veeramma was valid and genuine. 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the entire property by adverse possession. 4. Whether the defendant was entitled to a share in the property as a legal heir.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the family settlement was not valid and enforceable since it was not satisfactorily proved and there was no independent evidence to support the plaintiff's claim. 2. The court held that the will executed by Veeramma was not valid and genuine due to suspicious circumstances, lack of proper execution, and the fact that it was executed while Veeramma was ill and in a vulnerable state. 3. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the entire property by adverse possession since Veeramma did not acquire absolute title to the entire property and the plaintiff did not have exclusive possession of the property for the required period of time. 4. The court held that the defendant was entitled to a share in the property as a legal heir since Subrahmaniam died intestate and the property devolved upon his heirs according to the Hindu Succession Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both appeals and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court, which divided the property between the plaintiff and the defendant in accordance with their respective shares as determined by the court.
( 1 ) THESE two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of two suits -- O. S. No. 55 of 1977 and O. S. No. 109 of 197s originated from the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Tenali.
( 2 ) IN Original Suit No. 55 of 1977, originally one Ayinarnpudi Subrahmaniam was the owner of the plaint schedule properties. He died on 26/12/1943 leaving behind his first and second wives Veeramma and Pari-purnamma. Subrahmaniam had no issues through his first wife Veeramma. Through Paripurnamma, he got four children three daughters and a son. At the time of death of Subrahmaniam, his son was aged about 6 months. His daughters are Addepalli Venkata Lakshmi, plaintiff in O. S. No. 55 of 1977, Ramaratnam and Hanumayamma. Venkatalaxmi married to one Subbarao and after her marriage, she was residing at Tenali. While the matters stood thus, Venkatalaxmi filed the suit O. S. No. 55 of 1977, claiming that she is entitled to the properties that fell to her share as they were in the enjoyment of her foster-mother, Veeramma. Those properties comprise the Western portion of the terraced building in Ramalingeswarapeta and adjacent vacant site, Ac. 1-02 cents in Chinaravur village and a house at Bose Road.
( 3 ) AYINAMPUDI Narasimha Rao who is the brother of the plaintiff in O. S. No. 55 of 1977, filed the original Suit No. 109 of 1978 stating that his sister s husband, Addepalli Subbarao is the tenant of the house at Bose Road, Tenali and he is entitled to recover the same, or alternatively he pleaded for partition of the suit property into four equal shares and for allotment of two such shares to him. Since the parties to the two suits are common, and also in view of the joint memo filed by both parties requesting the Court to try the suits jointly, both the suits were tried together and disposed of by a common Judgment.
( 4 ) IN order to prove her case, the plaintiff Venkatalaxmi in O. S. No. 55 of 1977 examined herself as P. W. I besides examining P. Ws. 2 to P. W. 6 and got marked Exs. A-1 to A-71, documents. On the other hand, the defendants examined D. Ws. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs. B-1 to B-133. In addition to that Ex. X-1 to X-4 were marked by the witness and Ex. C-1 was marked by the Court.
( 5 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge, after scanning through the evidence on record, found that the family settlement alleged to have been made by both the parties has not been satisfactorily proved. He also found that the will under Ex. A-2 dated 25/10/1968 said to have been executed by Inampudi Veeramma has not been proved, since it was executed under suspicious circumstances and the same cannot be relied upon. With regard to the contention that the plaintiff in O. S. No. 109 of 1978 is entitled for recovery of the entire suit property basing on the oral relinquishment since Veeramma did not acquire any absolute title by adverse possession to the entire property and as the oral relinquishment set up by the plaintiff was disbelieved, it is is found that the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of his 11/20th share in the suit property. Aggrieved by the findings arrived at by the Court below, Appeal Suits Nos. 54 of 1981 and 1767 of 1980 have been filed before this Court.
( 6 ) IN these appeals, the learned single Judge while agreeing with the conclusions drawn by the trial Court in disbelieving the version set up by the plaintiff, found that the will put forward was executed under suspicious circumstances. The learned single Judge has also found that the family settlement as alleged by both parties is not correct and ultimately confirmed the judgment and decree made by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said finding, these two Letters Patent Appeals are filed.
( 7 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties to these Letters Patent Appeals are arrayed as they were referred to by the trial Court.
( 8 ) THE first contention that has been raised by Sri K. V. Satyanarayana, the learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the suit
AI
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
