Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Pentapati Venkatratnam - Appellant
Versus
Karri Venkatanarasayamma - Respondent
Decided On : 11-07-62
ADOPTION - FACTUM OF ADOPTION - PROOF - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND POSSESSION OF PROPERTY - LIMITATION - ARTICLE 47 OF THE LIMITATION ACT - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, the daughter of Tirupatirayudu by his second wife, Lachamma, instituted the suit for a declaration that the alleged adoption of Viranna by Tirupatirayudu is neither true nor valid in law and that her rights to the properties comprised in the estate of her father are not in any way affected after the life-time of Lachamma, the widow of Tirupatirayudu. The connected suit was filed by Venkatanarasayyamma, Rajamani alias Mahalakshamma and Lachamma, who are defendants 2, 3 and 1 respectively in the other suit, for a declaration of their title to and possession of the plaint scheduled property which was attached under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in M. C. No. 2/1941 on the file of the Joint Magistrate, Bhadrachalam.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that Karri Viranna had been duly adopted by Tirupatirayudu, that the will executed by Viranna was true and valid, and that the plaintiff in O. S. No. 45 of 1950 was not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by her. That suit was, therefore, dismissed. In O. S. No. 44 of 1950 the Court below held that the adoption of Viranna by Tirupatirayudu. was true, that he left a will conveying his properties, except to the extent of 24 acres in favour of the plaintiff, that the defendants had not acquired title by adverse possession, that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit properties within twelve years of suit, and finally, that the suit was not barred by limitation for the reason that it was not filed within three years from the date of the order of the Joint Magistrate, Bhadrachalam, in M. C. No. 2 of 1941.
Issues: 1. Whether Karri Viranna was validly adopted by Tirupatirayudu? 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the adoption of Karri Viranna by Tirupatirayudu was true and valid. The Court relied on the evidence of D. W. 12, Ademma, who was a resident of Pydipaka and knew Tirupatirayudu and his first wife Mahalakshmamma. She stated that Viranna was adopted by Tirupatirayudu and Mahalakshmamma with due solemnity, that there was the ceremony "of giving and taking; that Virannas natural parents gave him in adoption and that he was received by Tirupatirayudu and his wife Mahalakshmamma and that Viranna performed the obsequies of Mahalakshmamma. The Court also relied on the evidence of Lachamma, the widow of Tirupatirayudu and the mother of the plaintiff. She stated that Viranna was there even prior to Tirupatirayudu marrying her. She was even prepared to go further and say that her husband had told her that Viranna was his foster son. She also admitted that after her husbands death, Viranna himself performed his obsequies and that he was paying the taxes. 2. The Court held that Article 47 of the Limitation Act has no application to the present suit and that the conclusion reached by the lower Court, that the suit was not barred by limitation, is correct and must be affirmed. The Court held that when property is attached under Section 146, Cri. P. C. the right and title of the true owner cannot be extinguished under Section 28 of the Limitation Act, however long the attachment may continue, as the legal possession during the continuance of the attachment is in the person having title on the date of the attachment.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals with costs.
( 1 ) THESE appeals are from a common judgment of the Court of the District Judge, West Godavari. Appeals Nos. 471/1956 and 302/1957 arise out of O. S. No. 44 of 1950, and appeal No. 231/1960 arises out of O. S. No. 45/1950.
( 2 ) O. S. No. 44/1950 was originally instituted on 1/10/1944, in the Court of the Special Assistant Agent, Kovvur. After a lapse of about four years, on 31/12/1948, the Special Assistant Agent returned the plaint for presentation to the Agents Court. Pursuant to this order, the suit was transferred to the Agents Court on 17/01/1949. Eventually the suit was transferred from the Agents Court to the Court of the District Judge, West Godavari, where it was numbered as O. S. No. 44 of 1950. The connected suit was originally filed as O. S. No. 2 of 1948 on the file of the Agency Court, and was subsequently transferred to the District Court, West Godavari where it was numbered as O. S. No. 45 of 1950. The two suits were tried together with the consent of the parties. The evidence was recorded in O. S. No. 45 of 1950, and it will be convenient to refer to the ranks of the parties therein, and that was indeed the course adopted by the lower Court.
( 3 ) THE material facts, out of which these appeals have arisen, may be briefly stated: Tirupatirayudu and Gangaraju were brothers. Tirupathirayudu was twice married. Mahalakshmamma was his first wife. She had no issue, male or female. During the life time of Mahalakshmamma, Tirupatirayudu brought to his house his brothers son, Viranna, while he was of a tender age. Thereafter Mahalakshmamma died in or about the year 1905. Tirupatirayudu then married Lachamma, the 1st defendant, immediately after the death of his first wife Mahalakshmamma. Tirupatirayudu died in the year 1929. The plaintiff is the only daughter of Tirupatirayudu by his second wife, Lachamma. Viranna executed a will on 16/05/1942, bequeathing all the plaint schedule properties to his wife, Venkatanarasayamma, and his daughter Mahalakshmamma alias Rajamani, defendants 2 and 3 save an aggregate extent of 24 acres situated in the village of Singanapalli, Pydipaka and Veeravaramlanka, which he bequeathed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the suit on 1/10/1944, for a declaration that the alleged adoption of Viranna by Tirupatirayudu is neither true nor valid in law and that her rights to the properties comprised in the estate of her father are not in any way affected after the life-time of Lachamma, the widow of Tirupatirayudu.
( 4 ) THE 1st defendant remained ex parte.
( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 resisted the suit on various grounds. They filed a common written statement contending that Tirupatirayudu and his wife, Mahalakshmamma, adopted Viranna when he was 6 or 7 years old; that the requisite religious ceremonies, including that of giving and taking, were performed according to the Hindu Sastras; that Viranna became a coparcener with Tirupatirayudu, and on Tirupatirayudus death, Viranna became entitled to all the family properties by right of survivorship; and that Viranna himself performed all the obsequies of his adoptive mother, Mahalakshamma.
( 6 ) DEFENDANTS 4 to 10, who purchased the B schedule properties from Viranna, were also added as parties.-
( 7 ) THE connected suit, O. S. No. 44 of 1950, was filed by Venkatanarasayyamma, Rajamani alias Mahalakshamma and Lachamma, who are defendants 2, 3 and 1 respectively in the other suit, for a declaration of their title to and possession of the plaint scheduled property which was attached under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in M. C. No. 2/1941 on the file of the Joint Magistrate, Bhadrachalam. As Karri Lachamma, who was the 3rd plaintiff in the suit, while it was pending on the file of the agency Court, did not cooperate with, the other plaintiffs, she was subsequently transposed as the 18th defendant.
( 8 ) BRIEFLY stated, the case of plaintiffs 1 and 2 there was that Viranna left a will dated 16/05/1942, bequea
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
