T. Bhoopal Reddy vs K. R. Laxmi Bai (died)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(AP) 462

2007 (3) ALT 760
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.
T. Bhoopal Reddy and another - Appellant
v.
Smt. K.R. Laxmi Bai (Died) and others - Respondent
Appeal Suit No.1809 of 2002
Decided on 23-4-2007
Advocates appeared
M/s. M.S. Ramachandra Rao and M. Krishna Mohan Rao, Counsel for the Appellants.
Mr. N. Subba Reddy, Senior Counsel for Mr. C. Damodar Reddy and Mr. B. Vijayasen Reddy, Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 113 – Land Law – Suit for Partition -Appeal –suit filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit properties mentioned in the plaint as stated above, the appellants are plaintiffs and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the defendants in the original suit. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of during the pendency of appeal respondent No.1 respondent Nos.3 and 4 were brought on record by orders of this Court virtue of the Will Deed document for the purpose of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed the trial Court plaintiffs 1 and 2 are husband and wife averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint originally was native of village and that in along with his wife first defendant shifted to town and there he commenced his business taking contracts of ‘beedi’ leaves. It was further stated in the plaint that the second plaintiff and the second defendant are daughters of and first defendant and has no male issues first plaintiff was taken as illatom son-in-law and the marriage of first plaintiff with second plaintiff was performed it was further stated in the plaint that at the time of taking illatom adoption of first plaintiff executed an agreement agreeing to give one-third share in his properties –Held, second plaintiff who claims to be the elder daughter of the first defendant and she had not come into the witness box to depose that properties were given to her by her mother, D.W.1, out of love and affection. She was major at the time of the alleged execution of Ex. A-49. scribe of Ex. A-49, examined as P.W.4, in his evidence stated that the first defendant handed over Ex. A-49 to her elder daughter, the second plaintiff, by name Sunanda and this statement, it was imperative that the second plaintiff should have been examined, herself, to speak about the facts about the alleged execution of Ex. A-49 and also due execution by the first defendant. In this view of the matter the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants and other similar decisions to show that for the validity of illatom adoption, it is not necessary that agreement to give any property should be evidenced by a written document much less by a registered document, as illatom adoption is a creature of custom and the agreement it give a share need not be in writing, are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as curiously in this case, the contention of the plaintiffs that second plaintiff is the natural daughter of first defendant itself is not proved – Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiffs preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 14-5-2002 passed in O.S.No.51 of 1994 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, dismissing the suit filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit properties mentioned in the plaint.

2. As stated above, the appellants are plaintiffs and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the defendants in the original suit. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of one K.R. Rajareddy. During the pendency of appeal, respondent No.1 (first defendant) died on 30-3-2004 and, therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were brought on record by orders of this Court dated 17-11-2004 in C.M.P.No.14478 of 2004, by virtue of the Will Deed document No.75 of 2004 Book-III, dt.20-5-2004.

3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed the trial Court.

4. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint, in brief, are that late K.R. Rajareddy originally was native of Manala village and that in the year 1945, K.R. Rajareddy along with his wife i.e., first defendant (since deceased) shifted to Kamareddy town and there, he commenced his business taking contracts of ‘beedi’ leaves. It was further stated in the plaint that the second plaintiff and the second defendant are daughters of late K. R. Rajareddy and first defendant and that K.R. Rajareddy has no male issues. That late K.R. Rajareddy was the Chairman of Zilla Parishad, Nizamabad from 1964 to 1976. The first plaintiff was taken as illatom son-in-law in the year 1967 and the marriage of first plaintiff with second plaintiff was performed on 19-2-1968. It was further stated in the plaint that at the time of taking illatom adoption of first plaintiff, late K. R. Rajareddy executed an agreement on 11-11-1967 agreeing to give one-third share in his properties. Since the date of marriage, first plaintiff is living with K.R. Rajareddy at his house and looking after all his business and agriculture. In the year 1979 marriage of the second defendant was performed with Mr. C. Rama Krishan Reddy of Jakranpally village. An amount of RS.2,50,000/-, (50) tolas gold, and 1000 tolas silver ornaments apart from household articles were given as dowry. Since the date of marriage of the second defendant with Ramakrishna Reddy, she is living with her husband at Jakranpally and later they shifted to Hyderabad. It was further stated that late K.R. Rajareddy, purchased lands mentioned below situated at Kamareddy:

Sy.No. Extent Sy.Nos. Extent

Ac.Gts. Ac. Gts

18 0-23(wet) 17 0-04 Dry

19 0-12(,,) 24 1-03(,,)

20 0-19 23 1-31(,,)

21 0-33 28 7-34(,,)

22 0-06 80 0-07(,,)

23 0-08 81 0-14(,,)

908 1-25 82 0-14(,,)

909 1-23 878 2-12(,,)

910 3-00 880 5-24(,,)

907 1-09 898 5-12(,,)

5. Out of the above said lands, an extent of AC.2-32 gts. and AC.2-12 gts. in Sy Nos.28 and 878 respectively were surrendered in the land ceiling and that the remaining land except the land in Sy.Nos.28, 898 and 880 were converted into plots and were sold away to clear off the debts incurred by the family, and plot Nos.64 to 74 of 36 x 58 sq.ft each in L.P.No.223/81 and plot Nos. 49 and 50 of (60 x 50) sq. fts. and plot Nos. 104 and 105 of ‘B’ section of L.P.No.331/81 and plot Nos. 1 to 5, 8 to 26, 38, 39, 40, 58 to 62 in A section of L.P.No.331/81 and 34 plots in Sy.No.908 and 909.

6. The plaintiffs further stated in their plaint that late Sri K. R Rajareddy purchased house bearing No.3-1-10 situated at Sarojini Devi Road, Kamareddy consisting of (15) rooms over a plot of 684 sq. yards with open space and later, he constructed double storied building consisting of 12 rooms with five halls over the open space with (7) bath rooms and latrines. A portion of it was let out to APSWC for RS.350/- p.m. for library for Rs.1,500/- and (9) rooms for Rs.1,350/-Late K.R Raja

Click Here to Read the rest of this document