Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO, A.V.KRISHNA RAO
Chakicherla Audilakshmamma - Appellant
Versus
Atmakaru Ramarao - Respondent
Decided On : 11-30-71
REVERSIONARY RIGHT - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND DELIVERY OF POSSESSION - PLAINTIFF CLAIMING AS SISTER'S SON OF LAST MALE HOLDER - GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENT - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 90 OF EVIDENCE ACT - DISCRETION OF COURT - PROPER CUSTODY - INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL EVIDENCE - ORAL EVIDENCE - UNREGISTERED WILL - SUFFICIENCY OF PLEADING - ADOPTION - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title to the plaint A schedule properties and for delivery of possession of the same with profits. The plaintiff claimed that on Venkatasubbammas death, he became entitled to the properties as the reversioner to the estate of Late Venkatasubbayya as his sisters son and that there were no other or nearer heirs than the plaintiff to Venkatasubbayyas estate when the succession opened on 11-7-1953 consequent upon the death of the widow. It was also alleged that Venkatasubbamma, the widow of Venkatasubbayya, who was also the plaintiffs sister, executed an unregistered will dated 1-7-1953 bequeathing all the properties to the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the nearest reversioner to the estate of late Venkatasubbayya. The court found that Ex. X-10, which was the trump-card in the plaintiffs pack, could not be deemed to be genuine and could not be relied upon as established viz. , that the plaintiff is the sisters son of Venkatasubbayya. The court also found that the plaintiff had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish his relationship to late Venkatasubbayya as his siaters son.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the nearest reversioner to the estate of the late Atmakuru Venkatasubbayya. 2. Whether Ramaswamy, the grandfather of the defendants 1 to 5, was adopted by Narayanappa, the father of Venkatasubbayya, before Venkatasubbayya was born.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act is permissive and the Court according to the circumstances of each case, may or may not raise it. 2. The discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. 3. The exercise of the discretion should be in consonance with law and justice and courts are enjoined to observe great caution in exercising the discretion under this section. 4. Ordinarily when once the trial Court exercises its discretion, the appellate Court will be slow to interfere with that discretion. 5. But that is not to say that the first appellate Court has no right to interfere with the discretion of the trial Court in the matter of drawing a presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, if it is satisfied that the discretion was improperly exercised. 6. The first appellate Court has undoubtedly a duty to scrutinise with care and caution the available evidence on record and the circumstances bearing on the case and come to its own conclusions.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the reversioner to the estate of one Atmakaru Venkatasubbayya, who died possessed of the plaint schedule properties in the year 1883. On the death of Venkatasubbayya without issue, his widow Venkatasubbamma, succeeded to the properties and died on 11-7-1953 in the plaintiffs house. Venkatasubbamma was Venkatasubbayyas sisters daughter. The plaintiff was the sisters son of the said Venkatasubbayya. The plaintiff claimed that on Venkatasubbammas death, he became entitled to the properties as the reversioner to the estate of Late Venkatasubbayya as his sisters son and that there were no other or nearer heirs than the plaintiff to Venkatasubbayyas estate when the succession opened on 11-7-1953 consequent upon the death of the widow. It was also alleged that Venkatasubbamma, the widow of Venkatasubbayya, who was also the plaintiffs sister, executed an unregistered will dated 1-7-1953 bequeathing all the properties to the plaintiff. Venkatasubbamma filed O. S. No. 246 of 1951 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Ganigiri against defendants 6 and 7 in the suit for rent and possession in respect of item 1 of the plaint A schedule. During the pendency of the suit, Venkatasubbamma died. Thereupon the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 803 of 1953 for being impleaded as the local representatives of the deceased plaintiff Venkatasubbamma putting forward his sole reversionary right and also as a legatee under the will of Venkatasubbamma dated 1-7-1953. The present defendants 1 to 5 had filed I. A. No. 902 of 1953 to be impleaded as local representatives. It was their contention that Narayanappa, the father of the last male-holder Venkatasubbayya had taken in adoption their grandfather one Ramaswamy before the birth of Venkatasubbayya and as such there were the persons entitled to come on record by virtue of their nearer relationship to the deceased. These two I. As. Were enquired into by the Court and it was held therein that the present defendants 1 to 5 were the legal representatives and they were impleaded as such. A revision was preferred by the present plaintiff against the order in those I. As. And the same was dismissed. The plaintiff, therefore, was obliged to institute the present suit for establishment of his title to the plaint A schedule properties. The plaintiff in the present case had denied the adoption of Ramaswamy by Narayannayya.
( 3 ) THE defendants had filed written statements and contested the plaintiffs claim. While emphatically denying that the plaintiff was the sisters son of the last male holder, they set up the case of their grandfather Ramaswamy being adopted by Nrayanappa.
( 4 ) THE trial Court framed appropriate issues. The most important issue was " whether the plaintiff is the nearest reversioner to the estate of the late Atmakuru Venkatasubbayya. " The Trial Court, on a consideration of the documentary and oral evidence placed before it, came up to the conclusion that it was established that the plaintiff was the nearest reversioner to the estate of the late Venkatasubbayya and decreed the plaintiffs suit and passed a decree declaring the plaintiffs title to the plaint A sch
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
