Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
K.Ramanjulu, S/o Dasanna – Appellant
Versus
M.Sundaramma, W/o late M. Munaswamy and ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No.21 of 2023
Decided On : 31-01-2023
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 100 - Indian Succession Act - Section 214 - Registered simple mortgage - Recovery of money – Decreed - 1st plaintiff is wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are children - Defendant, owner of suit schedule property, borrowed an amount o from deceased and agreed to pay the same with interest @24% p.a. Defendant executed a registered simple mortgage deed dated in favour of by mortgaging schedule property - In spite of demands made , defendant failed to discharge amount and died leaving behind him, plaintiffs as his legal heirs - Plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated and filed suit for recovery - Whether succession certificate under Sec 214 of Indian Succession Act is necessary to institute the suit filed basing on registered simple mortgage? - Whether the defendant executed registered simple mortgage deed dated in favour of deceased M. Munaswamy Reddy? - Held, Courts below after careful scrutiny of pleadings and evidence on record, decreed suit - Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC must confine to substantial question of law involved in appeal - Court cannot substitute its own opinion unless findings of Court are manifestly perverse and contrary to evidence on record - Moreover, unless appellant establishes that the Courts below mis-read evidence and misconstrued the documents, the High Court normally will not interfere with findings of fact recorded by Courts below - Unless, appellant demonstrates that substantial question of law involved in second appeal, interference of Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC is not warranted - No question of law much less substantial questions of law arose in appeal - Second appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Defendant, in the suit, filed the above second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2022 in A.S.No.118 of 2016 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2016 in O.S.No.403 of 2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this judgment are referred to as per their array in the plaint.
3. Plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.403 of 2014 for recovery of money basing on registered simple mortgage dated 07.10.2011 and for passing preliminary decree etc.
4. The averments in the plaint, in brief, are that 1st plaintiff is wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are children of late Munaswamy Reddy. The defendant, owner of suit schedule property, borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 07.10.2011 from deceased Munaswamy Reddy and agreed to pay the same with interest @24% p.a. Defendant executed a registered simple mortgage deed dated 07.10.2011 in favour of Munaswamy Reddy by mortgaging the schedule property. In spite of demands made by Munaswamy Reddy, defendant failed to discharge the amount. Munaswamy Reddy died on 13.07.2014 leaving behind him, the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated 11.08.2014 and filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,39,066/-.
5. Defendant filed written statement and contended interalia that he did not mortgage the schedule property with Munaswamy Reddy on 07.10.2011. Plaint schedule property neither stood in his name nor in his possession. Plaint schedule property is standing in the name of third parties as per the entries in ROR/1-A and 1-B as well as No.2 adangal of Rangasamudram village. The deceased Munaswamy Reddy had no capacity to advance Rs.2,00,000/- and eventually prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
6. Basing on the pleadings, trial Court framed the following issues:
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable for non-filing of succession certificate?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?
(4) To what relief?
7. On behalf of plaintiff, 3rd plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined scribe as P.W.2 and attesting witness as P.W.3. Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked. On behalf of defendant, defendant examined himself as D.W.1 however, no documents were marked.
8. Trial Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit on 23.08.2016 and preliminary decree was passed for Rs.3,39,066/- with interest @12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and @6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on Rs.2,00,000/-. Two months time is granted for redemption.
9. Aggrieved by judgment and decree in suit, defendant filed appeal A.S.No.118 of 2016 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. Lower appellate Court being final fact finding Court on consideration of both oral and documentary and legal aspects and after framing necessary point for consideration under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 08.09.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed.
10. Heard Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for appellant.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the suit is not maintainable without filing succession certificate. He would also submit that the plaintiffs failed to prove Ex.A-1. He would submit that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective.
12. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal:
(2) Whether the defendant executed registered simple mortgage deed dated 07.10.2011 in favour of deceased M.Munaswamy Reddy?
13. It is apt to extract Section 214 of the Succession Act, 1925,
SupremeToday
The proof of the document need not be the proof of its contents, and the failure to question the validity of a document in a timely manner can impact the outcome of a legal dispute.
The legal representatives of a deceased creditor can continue a recovery suit without a succession certificate, provided they establish the promissory note's execution and consideration.
The succession certificate could be granted only in respect of `debts' and `securities' and the compensation amount under the Motor Vehicles Act did not come under `debts' or `securities'.
For a claim under Order 21 Rule 58, there must be an attachment of the property in execution proceedings.
The appellate court reaffirmed that the execution of a mortgage deed is valid with past consideration, and the burden of proof rests with the parties to provide evidence for their 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
