HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHANDRA REDDY,QAMAR HASAN, JJ.
Chatrathi Jagannadha Rao
Versus
M/s. Jatmal Madanlal Jakotia Firm
Appeals Nos. 7 and 556 of 1952 against decree of Sub-J., Vijayawada, in O. S. Nos. 10 and 96 of 1948.
Decided On : 19-04-1957
ADVERSE POSSESSION - LIMITATION - POSSESSION OF PROPERTY - SUCCESSION - WILL - CONSTRUCTION - ESTATE OF INHERITANCE - ADMISSION - EVIDENCE ACT, SS. 11 AND 13.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose over the ownership of two properties, one a house and the other a piece of land, which were initially owned by Seetharamayya. Seetharamayya died in 1901, leaving a will bequeathing the properties to his daughter, Syamalamba. Syamalamba died in 1922, and her daughter, Suryanarayanai, succeeded her. Suryanarayanai died in 1927, and her adopted son, Vasudeva Janardanam, claimed the properties as the reversionary heir of Syamalamba's husband. Lokeswararao, the adopted son of Seetharamayya, also claimed the properties, alleging that he had acquired title to them through adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Syamalamba had obtained an absolute estate in the properties under the will of Seetharamayya. The court also found that Vasudeva Janardanam was the adopted son of Syamalamba's husband and was therefore the rightful heir to the properties. The court further found that Lokeswararao had not acquired title to the properties through adverse possession.
Issues: 1. Whether Syamalamba obtained an absolute estate in the properties under the will of Seetharamayya? 2. Whether Vasudeva Janardanam was the adopted son of Syamalamba's husband? 3. Whether Lokeswararao had acquired title to the properties through adverse possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the words "for Pasupukumkuma" in the will of Seetharamayya were sufficient to convey full rights of ownership to Syamalamba. The court relied on the decision in Musiligadu v. Nannigadu, where it was held that a gift of land "on account of pin money" conferred an absolute estate on the donee. 2. The court found that Vasudeva Janardanam was the adopted son of Syamalamba's husband based on the oral testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence, including a statement by Lokeswararao himself. 3. The court found that Lokeswararao had not acquired title to the properties through adverse possession because he had never taken possession of the properties or exercised any acts of ownership over them.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by Lokeswararao and his sons, upholding the decision of the trial court.
CHANDRA REDDY, J. : -
I am in entire agreement with the conclusions reached by my learned brother. However, I will add a few words on the effect of a statement by Lokeswararao in Ex. A. 84, namely, that the land bearing Demarcation No. 130 was given to Syamalamba "for Pasupukumkum by her father.
2. Mr. Subrahmanyam for the appellant urges that the expressions "for Pasupukumkuma" do not imply anything more than the purpose for which the gift was made. They do not in any way enlarge the estate that is ordinarily conferred upon a woman i.e. a limited estate, continued the learned Counsel. We are not impressed with this argument. An absolute estate passes to the donee when the land is settled upon her for Pasupukumkuma. The words are of sufficient amplitude to convey full rights of ownership. They indicate the intention of the donor to confer an absolute estate on the donee and not one which determines with her life.
3. The counsel for the appellant cites Poomalai Ammal v. Subbamma, 1952-2 Mad LJ 884 : (AIR 1953 Mad 566) (A), in support of his contention. But that does not render any countenance to his proposition. On the other hand, some of the observations in that case go against the theory propounded by the learned counsel. It was stated there that a gift or a bequest to a woman should be construed in the same spirit as a gift in favour of a male. We are inclined to think the phrase "for Pasupukumkuma" connotes an absolute right. That is not consistent with the conferment of a limited estate. In this view of ours, we are reinforced by a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Musiligadu v. Nannigadu, 15 Mad LJ 492 (B). There the gift was made in the following terms :
"On account of pin money to you who is my daughter I have assigned and given to you an acre of land."
It was held that the donee obtained an absolute right to the land. In these circumstances, we feel that the admission in Ex. A. 84 establishes that the father of Syamalamba made an absolute gift of the lands to her.
QAMAR HASAN, J. : -
4. These are two appeals numbering 7 and 556 of 52 and they are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 27th September, 1951 of the 2nd additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada by which he decreed O. S. 10 of 1948 and dismissed O. S. 96 of 1948.
5. The property involved in O. S. 10 of 1918 was a site measuring 168 sq. yds. 3 sq. ft. and 6 sq. inches with a building of two floors bearing Door No. 6/66. The litigation in O. S. No. 96 of 1948 related to an area of Ac. 4.33 cents out of Survey No. 105 situate in the Municipal area of Vijayawada These properties admittedly belonged to one Seetharamayya, who before his death, adopted Lokeswararao and bequeathed the subject-matter of both the suits to his daughter, Sripati Syamalamba, who remained in possession and enjoyment thereof till her death in 1922.
Thereafter her daughter Suryanarayanai succeeded to her estate and enjoyed the same till 7th August, 1927. Suryanarayanai having died issueless one Sripati Vasudeva Janardhanam claimed reversion in his capacity as the adopted son of Sripati Sreeramulu who was the brother of Syamalambas husband, Gopayya. Out of the properties claimed to nave been inherited he sold the adjoining site and the house bearing door No. 6/66 to Messrs. Jetmal Madanlal Jakotia on 29th May, 1948.
The said purchaser is the plaintiff in O. S. 10 of 1948. The case he set up was that on the date of sale one Ganugapati Sreenivasarao was in occupation of the house in dispute as the tenant of the vendor. In the result of the sale he attorned to the vendee and executed in his favour a separate lease deed on 26th October, 1943. The said tenant continued in peaceful possession of the demised house when defendants 1 to 4 said to be members of the Communist Party committed trespass and forcibly dispossessed him in the month of June, 1944.
The trespassers coming to know that legal action was contemplated against them entered into negotiation with the plaintiff
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.