Back
2008 Supreme(AP) 360
Andhra Pradesh High Court
V.V.S.RAO, J.
Muddana Malleswara Rao — Appellant
Vs.
Karanam Ramaiah & Nagaratnamma Charities — Respondent
Appeal Suit No.2462 of 1989
Decided on : 12-6-2008
Counsel for Appellant: Sri S.V.Sundara Rajan
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned Counsel for Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar
Headnote:
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 –Section 12, 13 – Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 59 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 27, 67, 68 – Appeal – Summary of pleadings – Wife were issueless couple had huge properties were generous in donating these properties to religious and charitable purposes had four sisters were married and well-settled in life with good properties – Second sister was married to she had two daughters and a son who married was married to one who died in she adopted who is grandson of her younger sister in suit out of which present appeal arises dispute is regarding property interesting aspect of matter is that all three widows were rich and they donated properties to various charitable purposes College known as College was established Properties were also donated to Charities appointing as hereditary Managing Trustee of Trust which filed suit for declaration of title and injunction – Learned counsel for appellant defendant does not seriously challenge finding of trial Court on issue which deals with proof and validity of unregistered set up by appellant herein except examining who is scribe will was not proved as required under Sections 67 and 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 59 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 Learned Counsel however challenged registered which is basis of plaintiffs case – Here also rightly the learned counsel does not seriously challenge proof of Will – Submits that Ex.B.6 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and that the plaintiff failed to clear all such suspicious circumstances – Secondly learned counsel submits that having regard to registered adoption deed had right to alienate only half of property and therefore she could not have bequeathed entire property of plaintiff Trust – Held, Above clause does not even remotely suggest that it operates as an agreement dealing with right of under Section 13 of Act subject matter of was filed by for declaration that it is null and void suit was decreed but High Court in reversed lower Court Judgment – This Court considered validity of adoption and also right of to become owner of the suit property – Court rejected and negatived claim that he has become owner of property clearly stating that adoption deed does not divest as an absolute owner of property question whether 1st defendant takes half of property subject to agreement not to alienate same being premature does not arise above finding also operates as res being a decision between and rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondent though this Court left question open did not file a separate suit and by reason of Section 27 of Limitation Act, 1963 right if any got extinguished – Question whether 1st defendant takes half of property subject to agreement not to alienate same being premature does not arise finding also operates as res – As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondent though in Ex.B.24 this Court left question open did not file a separate suit and by reason of Section 27 of Limitation Act, 1963, right if any got extinguished – Application is dismissed.
This is a regular first appeal by defendant Muddana Malleswara Rao @ Karanam Sambasiva Rao against judgment and decree in O.S.No.32 of 1982 declaring that plaintiff/respondent, namely, Karanam Ramaiah and Nagaratnamma Charities, Thimmasamudram village (hereafter called, Trust), is absolute owner of plaint-A schedule properties consisting of four items of immovable assets and for permanent injunction. Be it noted, suit was tried along another suit being O.S.No.110 of 1982 filed by one Muddana Nagendrudu, who is none other than natural father of Sambasiva Rao. The said suit for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties was dismissed but no appeal is filed against the same. Be it also noted that evidence was recorded in O.S.No.110 of 1982.
2. Before noticing summary of pleadings in the suit a brief account of family relationship between Venkataratnamma and Sambasiva Rao may be noticed. Karanam Ramaiah and his wife Nagaratnamma were issueless couple. They had huge properties. They were generous in donating these properties to religious and charitable purposes. Ramaiah had four sisters, Subbamma, Veeramma, Videhamma and Seshamma. They were married and well-settled in life with good properties. Second sister, Veeramma, was married to Swamy. She had two daughters Venkataratnamma and Venkatasubbamma and a son Venkateswarlu, who married Mangamma. Venkataratnamma was married to one Karanam Ramesh @ Ramaiah, who died in 1928. In 1957, she adopted Muddana Mallesu @ Karanam Sambasiva Rao, who is grandson of her younger sister, Seshamma. In the suit, out of which present appeal arises, dispute is regarding property of Venkataratnamma. An interesting aspect of the matter is that Nagaratnamma, Mangamma and Venkataratnamma, all the three widows, were rich and they donated properties to various charitable purposes. A College known as Veldi Venkateswarlu and Mangamma College was established in Ongole. Properties were also donated to Ramaiah and Nagaratnamma Charities appointing Muddana Bhaskara Rao as hereditary Managing Trustee of the Trust, which filed suit for declaration of title and injunction. With this background, a reference may be made to the pleadings.
3. Karanam Venkataratnamma as mentioned had no children. Her husband had died about 50 years ago. Respondent who claims to be adopted son had strained relationship with Venkataratnamma, who was deceived by her close relatives including Muddana Nagendrudu. She therefore did not trust them. She was residing separately. She had desire to give her property for a charitable and educational purposes. Plaintiff trust was already running educational institutions like VV&M Degree College at Ongole and Karanam Ramaiah and Nagaratnamma Veterinary Hospital at Thimmasamudram. These institutions received generous donations from Nagaratnamma and Mangamma. Venkataratnamma also executed registered Will on 24.4.1973 in a sound and disposing state of mind, bequeathing her properties for charitable and educational institutions. Muddana Bhaskara Rao and Nagaratnamma were nominated as administrators. After death of Nagaratnamma, Venkataratnamma executed another registered Will on 14.4.1979 modifying earlier Will. All her properties shall vest with plaintiff trust to be managed by Bhaskara Rao. Venkataratnamma died on 19.5.1979 in the house of Bhaskara Rao when he was absent in the village. Defendant tried to take thumb impressions of Venkataratnamma on blank papers, in vain due to resistance by people present. Defendant forcibly took away her dead body together with gold bracelets which she was wearing. A complaint lodged to the Police was registered on 20.5.1979. In pursuance of Will dated 14.4.1979 Bhaskara Rao took possession of properties of late Venkataratnamma except gold bracelets and defendant is not in possession of the properties. Three days prior to filing the suit, defendant declared that properties left behind by Venkataratnamma belong to him and that he would not al
