Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. Raghunandan Rao, J.
Tuboti Venkateswarlu Died – Petitioner
Versus
Rayasam Madhava Rao – Respondent
Appeal Suit No.2592 of 2000
Decided On : 07-01-2022
Hindu Succession Act – Section 14 - Property- Recovery of possession - Deceased/1st appellant had filed O.S. against defendants/respondents in present appeal in Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur for possession of plaint - A schedule property, and for future profits from date of suit to date of possession - Parties are referred as they are arrayed in the plaint - Said schedule consisted of two items of property - Item No.1 was a house property of land within Municipal area - Item No.2 was agricultural land - This suit was filed as a suit in Informa pauperis, by way of O.P.- Suit was taken up and in course of proceedings, 1st plaintiff passed away and his son was brought on record as 2nd plaintiff, by way of an order in I.A.
Finding of the Court:
Discrepancies do not make out a case for rejecting execution and registration of document itself - In fact, case of plaintiffs is that said document was obtained by fraud or coercion - No evidence to make out a case of fraud or coercion has been forthcoming - Only material available to make out such a case is the fact that sub registrar was initially called to register document but was asked to return on that day as one was said to have been ill - Plaintiffs claim that actual reason for asking the sub registrar to return was that said one was unwilling to sign the document and was resisting attempts of defendants to make her sign the document – Court not willing to make that leap of faith and draw such conclusions on one fact that deed of settlement was not signed - It must be held that the plaintiffs have not made out any case on facts either.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The deceased/1st appellant had filed O.S.No.348 of 1987, against the defendants/respondents in the present appeal in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur for possession of plaint - A schedule property, and for future profits from the date of suit to date of possession. (The parties are referred as they are arrayed in the plaint.) The said schedule consisted of two items of property. Item No.1 was a house property, in an extent of 200 sq.yards of land within Guntur Municipal area. Item No.2 was agricultural land, to an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in D.No.335/A of Govindapuram Village, Guntur District. This suit was filed as a suit in informa pauperis, by way of O.P.No.257 of 1986. The suit was taken up and in the course of the proceedings, the 1st plaintiff passed away and his son was brought on record as the 2nd plaintiff, by way of an order dated 16.08.1999 in I.A.No.808 of 1999.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff had a brother viz., Tubeti Sriramulu @ Pullaiah, who was married to one Veeramma. Upon the death of Sriramulu after a short married life, Veeramma continued to reside with the joint family and on her request, she had been paid funds out of the joint family funds towards her maintenance. She in turn acquired schedule property, by using this maintenance money and the plaintiffs and their family members have been assisting her whenever she required help. While matters stood thus, the 1st defendant, who is the son of the brother of Smt.Veeramma and the 2nd defendant, who is the wife of the 1st defendant, with a view to grab the properties of Smt.Veeramma, had taken advantage of the incapacitated and mentally weak stage of Smt.Veeramma in the last years of her life to obtain conveyance of her property in their favour. Having came to know of these attempts, the 1st plaintiff issued a notice dated 24.03.1986, to the defendants that any attempt to transfer the properties of Smt.Veeramma, by the defendants would be resisted and any document brought into existence by playing fraud, coercion or misrepresentation or forgery would not have any legal validity. The 1st defendant after receiving this notice, sent a reply through an advocate on 14.04.1986, denying the allegations of the 1st plaintiff.
3. Smt.Veeramma died intestate on 14.08.1986 and her death ceremonies were carried out hurriedly without informing the 1st plaintiff about the said demise. The 1st plaintiff claiming that he becomes legal heir to the properties of Smt.Veeramma, filed the suit, for possession of the Aschedule properties as the defendants had taken unlawful possession of the A-Schedule property, by attorning the leases of the tenants situated in these properties in their favour.
4. The defendants filed their written statement denying all these allegations. It is the case of the defendants that Smt. Veeramma, who separated from the family of the plaintiffs when she was about 15 years old or so, had stayed in the house of her parents at Guntur and had purchased Aschedule properties, out of the proceeds of her wages as a cook and that there was no relationship between late Smt. Veeramma and her husband’s family. As the defendants were looking after late Smt. Veeramma, she, out of her affection towards the 2nd defendant, executed a Registered Settlement Deed dated 06.03.1986, in favour of the 2nd defendant, in respect of the suit schedule property, and as such, there is no property which would devolve on the 1st plaintiff.
5. The trial Court framed the following issues.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of suit property?
3. To what relief?
6. After completion of trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court, by way of judgment and decree dated 01.11.1999. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the 2nd plaintiff has filed the present appeal.
7. Heard Sri N.
Point of Law : In the case of a void document, a party assailing such a document need not seek its cancellation or a declaration that the said document is not binding on the said party. Such a situat....
A Karta under Mitakshara law cannot alienate joint family property via a Will; it is a family arrangement. Possession under a void document can lead to adverse possession if maintained for the requis....
Registered settlement deed proved under Evidence Act Section 68 proviso absent specific denial of execution; certified copy admissible if original lost; partition suit barred without cancelling deed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the property was purchased with the income of the father, and the settlement deeds were obtained through fraud and coercion, leading to the en....
(1) Settlement deed/Will – Whether a document is a Settlement Deed or Will, Court has to examine the document as a whole and to look into substance thereof and also to know intention of parties – For....
Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act grants absolute ownership to a female Hindu in possession of property acquired in lieu of maintenance.
Failure to challenge a settlement deed within the limitation period extinguishes rights to claim co-ownership, and prior consent can estop parties from succeeding in partition claims.
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
