Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALA KRISHNAN NAIR, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Ajjarapu Subbarao - Appellant
Versus
Pulla Venkata Rama Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 03-27-63
ADOPTION - FACTUM OF ADOPTION - ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS - RELEVANCY OF DOCUMENTS - SECONDARY EVIDENCE - WAIVER OF OBJECTION - HINDU JOINT FAMILY - JOINT FAMILY PROPERTIES - GIFT BY FATHER - VALIDITY - MORTGAGE BY FATHER - VALIDITY - MESNE PROFITS - LIABILITY OF TRESPASSERS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff claimed to be the adopted son of the 6th defendant and that they constituted a Hindu joint family owning the suit properties. In 1948, the 6th defendant's sister, her son-in-law, grandchildren, and the deceased husband of the 3rd defendant exerted undue influence over the 6th defendant and caused him to execute a gift deed of the properties in favor of the 2nd defendant and his deceased brother. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the gift and a subsequent mortgage were invalid and sought possession of the properties and mesne profits.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the plaintiff was the adopted son of the 6th defendant and that the plaintiff and the 6th defendant formed a Hindu joint family to which the suit properties belonged. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff was inadmissible and the oral evidence was insufficient to establish the adoption.
Issues: 1. Whether the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff was admissible? 2. Whether the oral evidence was sufficient to establish the adoption? 3. Whether the suit properties were joint family properties? 4. Whether the gift deed and mortgage deed were valid? 5. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the properties and mesne profits?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff was admissible. The court found that the documents were public documents which could be proved by secondary evidence and that the defendants had waived their objection to the admissibility of the documents by not objecting to their admission at trial. 2. The court held that the oral evidence was sufficient to establish the adoption. The court found that the evidence of the plaintiff's natural father and other independent witnesses was credible and that it corroborated the documentary evidence. 3. The court held that the suit properties were joint family properties. The court found that the 6th defendant had not acquired the properties by self-acquisition and that they were therefore joint family properties which he was not entitled to gift away. 4. The court held that the gift deed and mortgage deed were invalid. The court found that the gift deed was obtained by undue influence and that the mortgage deed was not supported by consideration. 5. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the properties and mesne profits. The court found that the defendants had trespassed on the properties and were liable for mesne profits.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the appellate court, and restored the decree passed by the trial court. The plaintiff was awarded costs of the appeal.
( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, J. who, on appeal, reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The corner stone of the plaintiffs suit was the claim that he was duly adopted by the 6th defendant as his son and that as a result of this adoption he and the 6th defendant constituted a Hindu joint family which owned the suit properties. In the year 1948 when the plaintiff was away, the sister of the 6th defendant (4th defen-dent), her son-in-law (1st defendant) and her grand children (defendant No. 2) and the deceased husband of the (3rd defendant) exerted undue influence over the 6th defendant who was then physically and mentally infirm and caused him to execute a gift deed of the properties in favour of the 2nd defendant and his deceased brother. Yet actual possession of the properties continued to be with the 6th defendant till some time in August 1950. Defendants 1 to 4 trespassed upon the properties in August 1950 and reduced them to illegal possession. The plaintiff claimed past and future mesne profits from defendants 1 to 4 in respect of the properties in their wrongful possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff further alleged that in March 1950, defendants 1, 2, 4 and the deceased husband of the 3rd defendant, brought to existence a simple mortgage of the suit properties in favour of the 5ih defendant in order to give a semblance of truth and validity to the gift of the properties which was obtained by them from the 6th defendant as a result of undue influence. The plaintiff sought a declaration that this mortgage is not valid and binding on him or on the suit properties, which belong to his joint family. The suit was resisted on the grounds that the adoption set up in the plaint was false, that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of the 6th defendant and that the gift deed and the mortgage deed, though assailed in the plaint, were genuine and valid.
( 2 ) THE trial Court, on the evidence placed before it, arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff was the adopted son of the 6th defendant and that the plaintiff and the 6th defendant formed a Hindu joint family to which the suit properties belonged. It therefore gave judgment for plaintiff. On appeal, Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, J. , reversed this decision. He did so on the ground that almost the entire documentary evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff was inadmissible and unacceptable and that the oral evidence was insufficient for establishing the case of adoption put forward by the plaintiff. The correctness of this decision of the learned single Judge has been strenuously challenged in this appeal.
( 3 ) IN support of the appeal, the appellants learned counsel has submitted that the learned single Judge was palpably in error in rejecting valuable documentary evidence on the side of the plaintiff and in failing to view the entire evidence in proper perspective and, assess its cumulative probative value. This attack on the part of the appellant calls for an examination of the admissibility and weight of the several documents which the learned single Judge rejected.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff-appellant, the adoption took place on 16-4-1936. The learned isingle Judge himself has stated towards the end of his judgment as follows:"if the adoption had really been true, during the 14 years i. e. , from 1936 to 1950, there would have been abundant documentary evidence available in support of the factum of adoption. "
( 5 ) THE appellants learned counsel has vigorously pressed upon us that this is not a case where there has been no documentary evidence but one in which valuable documentary evidence has been wrongly rejected by the learned single Judge.
( 6 ) EXHIBIT A. 4 is an extract from the register of admissions and withdrawals of the Municipal Model School, Eluru. It shows that the plaintiff was admitted into the school on 3-11-1942. The 6th defendan
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
