Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
P.S. NARAYANA, J.
Komatla Ranga Reddy (died) per L.Rs. and another - Appellants
Versus
Annavarapu lakshmi Prasanna and others - Respondents
Second Appeal No.200 of 1999
Decided on 31-1-2008
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 –Hindu Women Rights to Property Act, 1937 – Section, 8, 10, 14, 30 – Relief of declaration of title - Delivery of possession and for mesne profits – Defendants 3 and 4 carried matter by way of appeal on file of Additional District Judge and appellate court confirmed decree and judgment of court of first instance and dismissed appeal – Aggrieved by same present second appeal is preferred – Counsel for appellants had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the court of first instance and also appellate court and would maintain that in light of the findings recorded in the certified copy of judgment in inasmuch as the Will was declared to be invalid possession of deceased cannot be taken as lawful possession and hence Section 14 (1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be made applicable – Learned counsel also would contend that in the light of the facts and circumstances findings recorded by both court of first instance and also appellate court are totally unsustainable findings – Held, Question to be considered in this appeal is whether – High Court was right in holing that plaintiff Suresh Chandra at time of his adoption by plaintiff did not become a coparcener of in joint family properties – It is admitted case of both parties that properties consisted of agricultural land and a house jointly held – After death of become sole surviving coparcener of joint family – At time when plaintiff Suresh Chandra was adopted joint family still continued to exist and disputed properties retained their character of coparcenary properties – Undivided son died became the sale surviving coparcener in Hindu undivided family to which a number of female members belonged – Arunachalam died shortly after Estate Ordinance came into operation in Ceylon – Ordinance it was provided that property passing on death of a member of Hindu undivided family was exempt from payment of estate duty – On a claim to estate duty in respect of Arunachalams estate in Ceylon Judicial Committee held that Arunachalam was at his death a member of Hindu undivided family same undivided family of which his son when alive was a member and of which continuity was preserved after Arunachalams death by adoption made by widows of family and since undivided family continued to persist property in hands of Arunachalam as a single coparcener was property of Hindu undivided family – Judicial Committee observe of report relationship is not in serious controversy. Kotamma is second wife of China had settled property being second wife and after his death she became absolute owner and she settled property on Swamyreddy who is none other than her brother – No doubt intention with which she brought him could not be carried out but even after his marriage he remained in house of Kotamma along with her and Kotamma settled the property in favour of Swamireddy and same was challenged by first defendant daughter of China Chennaiah through his first wife – Application is dismissed.
This Court on 23-4-1999 made the following order:
"Admit in view of the substantial question of law involved in Ground Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the memorandum of appeal."
2. The substantial questions of law specified under Ground Nos.1, 2 and 3 read as hereunder:
(1) Is it permissible under law to ignore the provision under Section 14 (2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 inasmuch as the right of the vendor of 151 respondent is concerned in the light of decree in A.S. NO.19 of 1938 on the file of Sub-Judge, Bapatla dated 15-7 -1940?
(2) Whether it is legal to say that entire property vests with the vendor of the 151 respondent when it is decreed that Will dated 20-8-1922 which purports to have vested the entire property of Chennayya is not genuine in A.S. No.19/38 on the file of Sub Judge, Bapatla dated 15-7-1940?
(3) Is it legal to deny half share to the daughter of the deceased as per Section 10 of Hindu Succession Act along with the widow of the deceased since both of them are class-I heirs?
3. First respondent in this appeal, as plaintiff in the suit, instituted the suit O.S. No.89 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala, praying for the relief of declaration of plaintiff's title to the plaint schedule property and for delivery of possession and for mesne profits. Written statement was filed and on settlement of issues the learned Subordinate Judge recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, D.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-26, Exs.B-1 to B-3 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs as prayed for and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same defendants 3 and 4 carried the matter by way of appeal A.S. No.34 of 1994 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Ongole and the appellate court confirmed the decree and judgment of the court of first instance and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same the present second appeal is preferred.
4. First appellant died and appellants 3 to 7 were brought on record as legal representatives of the first appellant.
5. Sri K.S. Gopala Krishna, representing Sri K. Bathi Reddy, counsel for appellants had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the court of first instance and also the appellate court and would maintain that in the light of the findings recorded in the certified copy of the judgment in A.S. NO.19 of 1938 inasmuch as the Will was declared to be invalid, the possession of the deceased Kotamma cannot be taken as lawful possession and hence Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) cannot be made applicable. The learned counsel also would contend that in the light of the facts and circumstances, findings recorded by both the court of first instance and also the appellate court are totally unsustainable findings. The learned counsel also in elaboration had taken this court through the evidence available on record and also to substantiate the submissions placed reliance on several decisions.
6. Per contra, Sri G. Pedda Babu, learned counsel representing the respondents would maintain that concurrent findings had been recorded by both the court of first instance and also the appellate court. The status of Kotamma as wife is not in serious controversy. Even prior to 1956 she had preexisting right of maintenance dehors the Will and hence the validity or invalidity of the Will may not have any serious impact on the applicability or otherwise under Section 14 (1) of the Act. The learned counsel also had explained the scope and ambit of the suit which had been instituted and the findings recorded in the suit and the findings recorded in the appeal as well in the prior proceedings.
The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the contentions advanced before both the court of first instance and also the appellate court and would maintain that in the second appeal several contentions are being advanced without
SupremeToday
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
