IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. VENKATA RAMANA, J.
Bandaru Manikyala Rao alias Manikya Rao and two others - Appellants
Versus
Kedari Srinivasa Rao and three others - Respondents
A.S.Nos.1541 & 1555 of 1998 and Cross-objections in A.S.1555 of 1998
Decided on : 26-05-2020
Civil Law - Third respondent, who was a subsequent purchaser of a part of the plaint schedule property, during pendency of the suit, is the appellant in A.S.-. The respondents 1 to 3 therein are the plaintiffs and whereas respondents 4 and 5 are the defendants 1 and 2 respectively. The second respondent in A.S. who is also the fifth respondent in and the second defendant, presented cross-objections in respect of the findings against him in the judgment of the trial Court – Held, The judgment under appeal suffers from many contradictions and evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. Therefore, to the extent of the claim of the plaintiffs, as was rejected by the judgment of the trial Court, the appeal should be allowed. The appeal preferred by third defendant as well as his cross-objections shall be dismissed. Since the first defendant resorted highhanded act in meddling with the property and that had driven the plaintiffs to approach the Court for appropriate relief and in which act, the second defendant also joined in collusion, it is desirable to direct the defendants to pay costs to the plaintiffs throughout directing that they shall suffer their own costs. The third defendant is also liable to pay costs to the plaintiffs, who had purchased the property pending litigation knowing well about pendency of the dispute and he shall be directed to suffer his own costs –Appeal allowed
Facts of the Case:
First defendant in the suit did not prefer any appeal nor present any cross-objections either against the relief granted against him or with reference to the findings recorded against him in the impugned judgment
Finding of the Court:
The judgment under appeal suffers from many contradictions and evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. Therefore, to the extent of the claim of the plaintiffs, as was rejected by the judgment of the trial Court, the appeal should be allowed. The appeal preferred by third defendant as well as his cross-objections shall be dismissed. Since the first defendant resorted highhanded act in meddling with the property and that had driven the plaintiffs to approach the Court for appropriate relief and in which act, the second defendant also joined in collusion, it is desirable to direct the defendants to pay costs to the plaintiffs throughout directing that they shall suffer their own costs. The third defendant is also liable to pay costs to the plaintiffs, who had purchased the property pending litigation knowing well about pendency of the dispute and he shall be directed to suffer his own costs.
Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
The plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.1541 of 1998 against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.79 of 1989 dated 26.06.1998 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. Respondents are the defendants. During pendency of this appeal, the second respondent died. His wife being the legal heir was brought on record, as per order in A.S.M.P.No.1498 of 2012, dated 29.01.2014.
2. The third respondent, who was a subsequent purchaser of a part of the plaint schedule property, during pendency of the suit, is the appellant in A.S.No.1555 of 1998. The respondents 1 to 3 therein are the plaintiffs and whereas respondents 4 and 5 are the defendants 1 and 2 respectively. The second respondent in A.S.No.1541 of 1998, who is also the fifth respondent in A.S.No.1555 of 1998 and the second defendant, presented cross-objections in respect of the findings against him in the judgment of the trial Court in A.S.No.1555 of 1998. A.S.No.1555 of 1998 is preferred by the third defendant in respect of the findings recorded against him in the suit by the judgment of the trial Court, referred to supra.
3. The first defendant in the suit did not prefer any appeal nor present any cross-objections either against the relief granted against him or with reference to the findings recorded against him in the impugned judgment.
4. The property in dispute in this case is about Ac.0.03 cents to Ac.0.03½ cents (for short ‘the suit site’) in Sy.No.400/1 shown as ANQ SXZ1Z in the plaint plan, of Ponnur town in Guntur district. It is not in dispute that this site was a grant in favour of Sri Komirisetty Bollaiah somewhere in the year 1941. Smt.Bandaru Narayanamma, is the daughter of Sri Komirisetty Bollaiah. He had constructed a thatty house (hut) in this site and had gifted away to his eldest daughter Smt.Bandaru Narayanamma, under a registered gift deed dated 01.09.1959 (Ex.B4). It is also not in dispute that Smt.Bandaru Narayanamma continued to be in possession and enjoyment of this site, where she got constructed three shop rooms, which are abutting municipal road known as Subbaraya Picture Palace Road in Ponnur Town, facing north. These shop rooms are stated to be in Ac.0.01 cents out of Ac.0.03 ½ cents. Behind these shop rooms, i.e., on the South a dwelling house was constructed with slant of the roof towards further South, and vacant site further south of it. The plaint plan, though disputed on behalf of the defendants in the suit, gives a fair idea of location of this property.
5. For convenience, the parties shall be referred hereinafter as arrayed in the suit, viz., as the plaintiffs and the defendants. The second defendant is the elder brother of the first plaintiff. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of the first plaintiff. P.W.2 Smt.Bandaru Chittemma, is the wife of the first plaintiff. The second defendant and the first plaintiff are the sons of Smt.Bandaru Narayanamma. She died on 14.06.1989.
6. It is desirable to consider the pleadings set out by the parties before evaluating and analysing the evidence on record along with other material to know the basis of their claims in the suit.
7. In the plaint, the case of the plaintiffs was as under:
(ii) In the above thatched house all the plaintiffs and wife of the first plaintiff have been living. The second defendant resides near Srinivasa Picture Palace, Ponnur. Different portions out of items III & II of shop rooms along with items IV, V, VII & VIII gifted to the daughter of the f
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.