Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
M. VENKATA RAMANA, J.
Rayachoty Anjaneyulu S/o R. Nagaiah – Petitioner
Versus
Anamala Basamma W/o Anamala Venkata Ramaiah – Respondent
A.S. No. 450 of 2007
Decided On : 20-04-2020
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96 – Suit for relief of declaration of her right, title and interest to the plaint schedule property and for perpetual injunction against the appellants, restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same – Held, Respondent’s family constructed a house in the suit property in the year 1988. It is not in dispute that they have been living in this house. It is in an extent of about six cents. Remaining extent in the suit property is a vacant site. It is not in dispute that there are two tombs of the first wife of the first appellant and that of the second appellant respectively in this site – Held, a father can make a gift of ancestral immovable property within reasonable limits, keeping in view, the total extent of the property held by the family in favour of his daughter at the time of her marriage or even long after her marriage - Question as to whether a particular gift is within reasonable limits or not has to be judged according to the status of the family at the time of making a gift, the extent of the immovable property owned by the family and the extent of property gifted. No hard-and-fast rule prescribing quantitative limits of such a gift can be laid down. The answer to such a question would vary from family to family - possession of the suit property stood rested in the respondent, by virtue of the gift under Ex.A2 and that she and other members of her family have been in possession and enjoyment of the same, including the house. In view of these findings, this point should be answered in favour of the respondent rejecting the contentions of the appellants. decree and judgment of the trial court should be confirmed, warranting no interference, either on facts or in law upon re-evaluating the material on record. Hence, this appeal has to be dismissed.
Facts of the Case:
Disputes arose between the appellants and the respondent in respect of the suit property in or about the year 2005, when the appellants complained to the revenue authorities requesting to delete the suit property from the Pattadar Passbook and Book of Title deed issued to the respondent. In the enquiry before the Mandal Revenue Officer, the version of the appellants was accepted and entries in these Pattadar Passbook and Book of Title deed were directed to be deleted by an order dated 14-04-2005 (Ex.B12). An appeal preferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa by Sankar son of the respondent, was also dismissed on 18-10-2005 (Ex.B7). A revision petition filed by Sankar, is stated to be pending before the Joint Collector, Kadapa in this respect, against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer.
Finding of the Court:
a father can make a gift of ancestral immovable property within reasonable limits, keeping in view, the total extent of the property held by the family in favour of his daughter at the time of her marriage or even long after her marriage - Question as to whether a particular gift is within reasonable limits or not has to be judged according to the status of the family at the time of making a gift, the extent of the immovable property owned by the family and the extent of property gifted. No hard-and-fast rule prescribing quantitative limits of such a gift can be laid down. The answer to such a question would vary from family to family - possession of the suit property stood rested in the respondent, by virtue of the gift under Ex.A2 and that she and other members of her family have been in possession and enjoyment of the same, including the house. In view of these findings, this point should be answered in favour of the respondent rejecting the contentions of the appellants
Result: Appeal suit is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
M. VENKATA RAMANA, J.
1. This appeal is preferred under Section 96 of CPC by the defendants. The respondent is the plaintiff.
2. The respondent laid the suit for relief of declaration of her right, title and interest to the plaint schedule property and for perpetual injunction against the appellants, restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
3. The plaint schedule property is a dry land in Survey Number 63/1 of Ac. 0.60 cents, Kummari Palli village in Rayachoti Mandal, Kadapa District, with a RCC building. It shall be referred to hereinafter as “the suit property.”
4. The appellant and the respondents are closely related. The respondent is the elder sister of the appellants 1 and 2. The third appellant is the son of the second appellant. The respondent and the appellants 1 and 2 are the children of Sri late Rayachoti Naganna. Smt. Laxmi Devi and Smt. Parvathamma are their sisters. Smt. Gangulamma is the wife of Sri late Rayachoti Naganna. Sri Bala Subbanna, Sri Nalla Subbanna, Sri Ramana and Sri Lakshmanna are brothers. Smt. Lakshmamma is the wife of Sri Lakshmanna, referred to above.
5. Sri Lakshmanna and Smt. Lakshmamma had two daughters viz. Smt. Basamma and Smt. Subbamma. Smt. Basamma died during the lifetime of Smt. Lakshmamma, leaving behind her only daughter Smt. Gangulamma. Sri late Rayachoti Naganna is related to Smt. Lakshmamma, being the son of one of her brothers-in-law. Smt. Subbamma died issueless.
6. Admittedly, the respondent’s family constructed a house in the suit property in the year 1988. It is not in dispute that they have been living in this house. It is in an extent of about six cents. Remaining extent in the suit property is a vacant site. It is not in dispute that there are two tombs of the first wife of the first appellant and that of the second appellant respectively in this site.
7. The respondent along with one of her sons, Raja has been working in Kuwait, a Gulf country for about 15 to 20 years. They used to visit their village once in two years or three years. On account of her employment in the above country, the respondent appointed her son Sankar as her attorney, under a registered General Power of Attorney (Ex.A1), to look after the affairs relating to the suit property on her behalf.
8. Disputes arose between the appellants and the respondent in respect of the suit property in or about the year 2005, when the appellants complained to the revenue authorities requesting to delete the suit property from the Pattadar Passbook and Book of Title deed issued to the respondent. In the enquiry before the Mandal Revenue Officer, the version of the appellants was accepted and entries in these Pattadar Passbook and Book of Title deed were directed to be deleted by an order dated 14-04-2005 (Ex.B12). An appeal preferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa by Sankar son of the respondent, was also dismissed on 18-10-2005 (Ex.B7). A revision petition filed by Sankar, is stated to be pending before the Joint Collector, Kadapa in this respect, against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer.
9. In the above circumstances, it is the contention of the respondent that she was constrained to lay the suit for the above reliefs against the appellants.
10. The case of the respondent in the plaint was that her father Sri late Rayachoti Naganna gifted away the suit property along with Ac. 0.17 cents of wet land in Survey Number 77/5 of Kummari Palli at the time of her marriage towards ‘Pasupu Kumkuma’ which she has been enjoying from then onwards and that ultimately her father executed a registered gift deed in respect of these properties on 27-12-1973 in her favour. She further averred in the plaint that in recognition of her possession and enjoyment, she was given a Pattadar Pass book and a Book of Title deed. She further averred that she along with her husband and children has been enjoying the suit property including constructing a house therein. She furth
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
