Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
P. Abbulu - Petitioner
Versus
M. Rama Mohana Veera Venkata Satyanarayan - Respondent
Appeal Suit No.1291 of 2002
Decided On : 07-05-2020
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 10 - appeal is directed against the judgment and decree whereby the suit filed by the sole plaintiff for declaration of his title to the plaint A, B, C and D schedule properties and for recovery of possession of A, B and C schedule properties and for return of move ables shown in plaint D schedule or the value thereof was dismissed – held, plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the said properties and the defendant is entitled to the same and recorded findings to that effect which are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Upon reappraisal of the said evidence on record, this Court also found that the adoption of defendant is valid and the Will set up by the plaintiff is not valid and binding on the defendant and that the defendant became the absolute owner of the said property in his capacity as the adopted son of Satyavathi and Gani Raju and that he is entitled to be in possession of the said property in question and enjoy the same. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court are perfectly sustainable under law. They absolutely warrant no interference in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed as it is devoid of any merit - Appeal dismissed
Facts of the Case:
One Mutyala Satyavathi is the absolute owner of plaint A and D schedule properties which are her self-acquisition property. Her husband Gani Raju was the owner of paint B and C schedule properties which are his self-acquired property. The said property is in the effective control and possession of Satyavathi and she used to manage the same. They have no issues. Therefore, Satyavathi and Gani Raju have adopted the defendant as their adopted son on 19-6-1991. The said adoption is not legally valid and enforceable as the defendant was aged about 16 years on the date of the said adoption. The defendant and his natural parents suppressed the said fact that he is aged about 16 years and fraudulently gave him in adoption to Satyavathi and Gani Raju. Subsequently, the said fact came to the notice of Satyavathi. So, no rights are created in favour of the defendant as the adopted son of Satyavathi and Gani Raju
Finding of the Court:
plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the said properties and the defendant is entitled to the same and recorded findings to that effect which are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Upon reappraisal of the said evidence on record, this Court also found that the adoption of defendant is valid and the Will set up by the plaintiff is not valid and binding on the defendant and that the defendant became the absolute owner of the said property in his capacity as the adopted son of Satyavathi and Gani Raju and that he is entitled to be in possession of the said property in question and enjoy the same. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court are perfectly sustainable under law. They absolutely warrant no interference in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed as it is devoid of any merit
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-4-2002 passed in O.S.No.41 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, whereby the suit filed by the sole plaintiff for declaration of his title to the plaint A, B, C and D schedule properties and for recovery of possession of A, B and C schedule properties and for return of move ables shown in plaint D schedule or the value thereof was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the plaintiff may briefly be stated as follows:
(a) One Mutyala Satyavathi is the absolute owner of plaint A and D schedule properties which are her self-acquisition property. Her husband Gani Raju was the owner of paint B and C schedule properties which are his self-acquired property. The said property is in the effective control and possession of Satyavathi and she used to manage the same. They have no issues. Therefore, Satyavathi and Gani Raju have adopted the defendant as their adopted son on 19-6-1991. The said adoption is not legally valid and enforceable as the defendant was aged about 16 years on the date of the said adoption. The defendant and his natural parents suppressed the said fact that he is aged about 16 years and fraudulently gave him in adoption to Satyavathi and Gani Raju. Subsequently, the said fact came to the notice of Satyavathi. So, no rights are created in favour of the defendant as the adopted son of Satyavathi and Gani Raju.
(b) While so, Gani Raju died intestate on 11-7-1993 leaving behind his wife Satyavathi as his sole surviving legal heir. So, his property devolved on his wife Satyavathi. Therefore, Satyavathi became absolute owner of plaint A to D schedule properties and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, managing the said property till January, 1998. The defendant went back to his natural parents who are at Peyyeru Village in Krishna District about two years prior to January, 1998 renouncing his character as adopted son of Satyavathi and Gani Raju as Satyavathi did not agree to give any of the plaint A to D schedule properties to him.
(c) Satyavathi became old and as it is difficult for her to manage her properties in the said old age without any male assistance to look after herself and her properties, she shifted her residence from Subhadrapuram to the house of the plaintiff, who is the son of her brother at Teki Village in January, 1998. Since then, the plaintiff is looking after her welfare. The plaintiff and his father are managing the property of Satyavathi. The defendant made an attempt to take forcible possession of the plaint schedule properties but was in vain.
(d) While so, on 08-5-1998 Satyavathi executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff in a sound disposing state of mind bequeathing plaint A to D schedule properties in his favour. On 09-5-1998 she was suddenly subjected to ill health on account of paralysis at Teki Village. She was immediately admitted in the hospital. The defendant and his father harassed her in the hospital while she was taking treatment by making illegal demand to give her property to them. Satyavathi lodged a report with the Police on 18-5-1998 against them and also sought protection from them. The defendant and his father forcibly abducted her from the hospital on 25-5-1998 at 06.00 p.m., and she died on 26-5-1998.
(e) After her death, the plaintiff became absolute owner of plaint A to D schedule properties by virtue of the Will dated 08-5-1998 executed by Satyavathi in his favour and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint A and B schedule properties from the date of the demise of the said Satyavathi. The defendant high-handedly took possession of C schedule property on 23-5-1998 by breaking open the lock of the house and committed theft of 80 kata bags of paddy stored in the granary shown in D schedule properties along with other gold etc. The defendant also trespassed into plaint A and B schedule properties on 28-5-1998 and
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
