Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
MANGIPUDI NAGARAJU, S/o Rarnalingeswarudu – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADAESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.1399 of 2021
Decided On : 08-10-2021
Registration Act - Section 22-A - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 3 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Registered Will Deed Executed - Evident from Certificate issue - Nature of Writ of Mandamus - Declaring Sale Deeds - Fabricated an adoption deed - One are husband and wife not blessed with any children - Murthy was the absolute owner of agricultural land to an extent of cents situated in various survey numbers of Village and house constructed in and he alienated his entire property to his wife during his lifetime - He died on leaving who is maternal aunt of petitioner bequeathed said property to him as he had taken care of their welfare at old age - Petitioner became the absolute owner and possessor of said property as per registered Will deed executed by who died on - Petitioner became absolute owner of property as a legatee Will and he is in possession and enjoyment of property.
Finding of the court :
It is not case of petitioner that respondent No.8 deviated procedure and mutated names of respondent - If that is case Court is required to enquire into procedure followed by respondent Tahsildar while mutating names of respondent - But here petitioner did not challenge procedure followed by respondent for mutating the names of respondent Nos.14 and 15 in revenue records – Therefore this Court is not required to adjudicate upon validity of mutation based on procedure prescribed under the Act - Hence act of respondent No.8 cannot be held to be fraud - However if petitioner succeeds in Court proceedings he is entitled to intimate same to concerned to make necessary changes in the revenue records in view of language employed in Section 4 (1) of Act on receipt of such intimation is required to follow the procedure.
Result: Petition is Dismissed
ORDER:
One Mangipudi Nagaraju filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
(a) declaring the Sale Deeds i.e. (i) Document No. 689/2020 dt.05.02.2020 (ii) Document No.879/2020 dt.13.02.2020 (iii) Document No.1914/2020, dt.06.05.2020 and (iv) Document No.1924/2020 dt.07.05.2020, which were illegally registered by the 5th respondent in contravention of the Judgment and Decree dt.29.04.2019 in O.S.No.20/2002 and 0.S.No.82/2002 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram,
(b) declaring the consequential action of the respondents 7 and 8 in mutating the revenue record in favour of unofficial respondents 14 to 16,
(c) declaring the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the illegal construction being made by Respondents in the petitioner‘s land admeasuring Ac.0.30 cents, situated in Sy.No.183/1 (Ac.0.10 cents) and Sy.No.183/2 (Ac.0.20 cents) of Bhatnavilli Village, Amalapuram Rural Mandal, East Godavari District covered by impugned sale Deeds bearing No.879/2020 dt.13.2.2020 and No.1924/2020 dt.7.5.2020 and also
(d) declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from his land admeasuring Ac.7.55 cents situated in Sy.No.183/1, 183/2, 183/3, 3/5, 3/6, 35/1A, 35/1B, 35/2 and 35/3 of Bhatnavilli Village, Amalapuram Rural Mandal, East Godavari District covered by impugned Sale Deeds as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, vitiated by mala fides and extraneous considerations and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India apart from contrary to relevant statutes and the Rules made thereunder and consequently set aside the impugned Sale Deeds and direct the respondents to demolish the illegal constructions in the said land.”
2. One Kappaganthula Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy (for short “Murthy”) and Smt.Kappaganthula Lakshmi Sodemma (for short “Sodemma”) are husband and wife, not blessed with any children. Murthy was the absolute owner of (i) agricultural land to an extent of Ac.16.63 ½ cents situated in various survey numbers of Bhatnavilli Village, Amalapuram Rural Mandal, and (ii) house constructed in Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.97/21 of Bhatnavilli and he alienated his entire property to his wife during his lifetime. He died on 19.10.2015 leaving Sodemma, who is the maternal aunt of the petitioner (sister of mother of the petitioner), bequeathed the said property to him as he had taken care of their welfare at the old age. Thus, the petitioner became the absolute owner and possessor of the said property as per the registered Will deed dated 02.01.2018 executed by Sodemma, who died on 17.11.2019. Thus, the petitioner became absolute owner of the property as a legatee under the Will and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property.
3. One Prabhakara Rao, respondent No.15, son of younger brother of Murthy, having lost all the properties, fell to the share of his father, with a mala fide intention to become owner of the property of Murthy, hatched a plan and fabricated an adoption deed dated 24.05.1993 to claim that Murthy and Sodemma adopted respondent No.14, and got the signature of Murthy and Sodemma on the said fabricated adoption deed by fraud and misrepresentation on the day when Murthy executed and registered a sale deed in favour of his wife and also requested the said couple to perform thread marriage (Vadugu) to respondent No.14. Out of good faith, the said couple performed thread marriage (Vadugu) to respondent No.14. Even assuming that there is adoption deed, it was not acted upon as is evident from Certificate issued by the Principal, SKBR College, Amalapuram, House Hold Cards of Mr.Murthy and respondent No.15 etc. In the year 2002, respondent No.15 fabri
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
