Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
Lakshmi Ramakrishna W/o. B. Ramakrishna - Appellant
Versus
Dundi China Venkata Reddy, S/o. Sriramulu Reddy - Respondent
C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 And C.R.P.Nos.1169 & 1397 of 2021
Decided on : 03-03-2022
Constitution of India, 1950- Article 227 and 226 – Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Sections 96, 151 99, 2(2) and Order VII Rule 11 - Delivery of physical possession of the plaint - Executed a partition deed - Father had purchased an extent of Ac.1.96 ½ cents of land District, by way of separate deeds of sale. Similarly, his mother, purchased Ac.1.00 of land and inherited Ac.1.00 of land through her mother is said to have passed away, intestate - Father of plaintiff passed away leaving behind his wife 4 sons and a daughter - All these persons are said to have partitioned aforesaid Ac.3.96½ cents of land even before demise of and in any event executed a partition deed and registered the same under Document office of sub-registrar - Parties to this deed of partition were, her 4 sons including the plaintiff herein, and her daughter.
Finding of the Court: Plaintiff had also filed deeds of sale said to have been executed in favour of other defendants, on basis of these fabricated documents, and sought these deeds of sale to be set aside - Deeds of sale under which the petitioners herein had obtained title to plots in their name, mentioned in list of documents is attached to the plaint. Copies of these documents have also been placed before this Court by the petitioners - Plaintiff does not dispute that copies of the documents - These are not documents, which are executed by the 2nd defendant, either on the basis of the agreement of sale executed or power of attorney executed - Except allegation that these two documents were not executed by Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma.
Result: C.R.P.Nos.1318 of 2020 and 1397 of 2021 are allowed.
ORDER :
These civil revision petitions arise out of the proceedings in O.S.No.617 of 2015, raising the same issues, as such, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.
2. One Sri Dundi China Venkata Reddy (hereinafter referred to ‘the plaintiff‘) had filed O.S.No.617 of 2015 before the 1st Additional District Judge, Guntur, against 20 defendants. Defendants 6 to 8 are the petitioners in C.R.P.No.1169 of 2021 and C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020. The 5th defendant is the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1397 of 2021.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that his father had purchased an extent of Ac.1.96 ½ cents of land in Sy.No.3 of Agthavarappadu Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District, by way of separate deeds of sale. Similarly, his mother, Smt. Dundi Venkata Ratnamma, had purchased Ac.1.00 of land and inherited Ac.1.00 of land through her mother Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma in Sy.No.3 of Agthavarappadu Village. Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma is said to have passed away, intestate, on 19.09.1988, after which Smt. Dundi Venkata Ratnamma inherited the said Ac.1.00 of land belonging to Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma. Thereafter, Dundi Sriramulu Reddy, the father of the plaintiff passed away on 12.10.1997 leaving behind his wife Smt. Dundi Venkata Ratnamma, 4 sons and a daughter. All these persons are said to have partitioned the aforesaid Ac.3.96½ cents of land even before the demise of Sri Dundi Sriramulu Reddy and in any event executed a partition deed and registered the same on 03.04.2014 under Document No.2346/2014 in the office of the sub-registrar, Koritepadu. The parties to this deed of partition were Smt. Dundi Venkata Ratnamma, her 4 sons including the plaintiff herein, and her daughter. The plaintiff had been given absolute ownership over ‘D’ schedule property, which corresponds to 18 plots of land in the layout of the said Ac.3.96½ cents.
4. The plaintiff had thereafter filed O.S.No.617 of 2015 against 20 defendants. The plaintiff claims that defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit had brought into existence a fake and forged agreement of sale dated 15.11.1989 said to have been executed by late Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma in favour of the 1st defendant and subsequently created a fake, forged and false general power of attorney dated 02.06.1990 registered as document No.395/1990 before the District Registrar, Guntur, allegedly by Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma in favour of the 2nd defendant. On the basis of the said fake and forged agreement of sale, and fake and forged general power of attorney, defendants 1 and 2 are said to have alienated various plots, which are part of the lands comprising the plaint schedule property, in favour of various purchasers, who are also made parties to the suit as defendants 3 to 20.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the plaintiff sought declaration of title under the registered deed of partition dated 03.04.2014; a declaration that the agreement of sale dated 15.11.1989 allegedly executed, by late Smt. Pittu Annapurna, in favour of the 1st defendant and the registered general power of attorney dated 02.06.1990 allegedly executed in favour of the 2nd defendant by Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma, are fake and forged documents, which are invalid and unenforceable under law and for further declaration that the consequential execution of registered sale deeds by the 2nd defendant in favour of other defendants or their purchasers are equally invalid and illegal.
6. The consequential reliefs sought on the basis of the said declaration was for delivery of physical possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants and for mesne profits from the date of the suit till the plaintiff is put in physical possession of the suit schedule property.
7. After the filing of the suit, defendants 6 to 8 moved I.A.No.1309 of 2019 and defendant No.5 moved I.A.No.1302 of 2019 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint. These two applications were dismissed by the trial Court on 18.02.2020. Defendants 6 to 8 also moved I.A.No.374 of
Order II Rule 4(c) C.P.C., would permit a single suit in respect of immoveable property only where the relief sought is based on the same causes of action. As several causes of action against several....
A power of attorney cannot confer title to property, and ownership must be established for granting partition or possession. Individuals may seek partition based on possessory rights, but a valid cau....
The main legal point established is that a suit can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if it is time-barred, lacks a cause of action, or seeks to reopen a valid previous partition.
A plaintiff asserting ownership based on historical rights and alleged partition must be permitted to pursue relief through trial when faced with disputed claims and questions of fact.
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
