ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Avanigadda Venkayamma, Krishna Dist – Appellant
Versus
Munnangi Raghavulu, Krishna Dist – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 430 of 2000
Decided On : 12-05-2023
Sec. 100 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Oral evidence in proof of title, gift deed, will deed, partition of joint properties - The court discussed the permissibility of parties to adduce oral evidence in proof of title alleged to have been acquired under a will deed and gift deed, the permissibility of claiming title under a gift deed which is not registered, and the permissibility of bequeathing a certain share prior to partition of joint properties. The court also considered the settled law that the plaintiff must succeed on his own strength and not on the weaknesses of the defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession over the property. The plaintiff claimed to be the absolute owner of the property based on his relationship with the deceased and the execution of a Will Deed and a Gift Deed.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit in respect of one property but allowed it in respect of another. The first appellate court allowed the suit in its entirety, considering the plaintiff's possession and prima facie ownership based on revenue records and the admission of the defendant. The second appellate court upheld the first appellate court's decision, stating that the substantial questions of law framed by the court did not arise for determination.
Issues: The issues included the permissibility of oral evidence in proof of title, the validity of a gift deed, the permissibility of claiming title under an unregistered gift deed, and the permissibility of bequeathing a share prior to partition of joint properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the plaintiff's possession and prima facie ownership based on revenue records and the admission of the defendant. The court also considered the settled law that the plaintiff must succeed on his own strength and not on the weaknesses of the defendant.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, upholding the first appellate court's decision.
JUDGMENT
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 17/1/2000 passed in A.S.No.3 of 1998 by the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 11/8/1997 passed in O.S.No.166 of 1991 by the District Munsif, Avanigadda.
2. This appeal has been admitted treating grounds (a), (b), (c) and (f) in the memorandum of appeal as substantial questions of law. The said grounds/substantial questions of law are as follows:
'(a) Whether it is permissible to parties to adduce oral evidence in proof of title alleged to have been acquired under a will deed and gift deed without either examining a single witness or even producing the documents.
(b) Whether it is permissible for the parties to claim title under a gift deed which is not registered.
(c) Whether it is permissible to parties to bequeath a certain share prior to partition of joint properties.
(f) Whether the appellate court has not erred in concluding that defendant did not succeed in establishing his claim over the property when it is settled law that plaintiff must succeed on his own strength and not on the weaknesses of the defendant.'
3. The plaintiff, Munnangi Raghavalu, preferred O.S.No.166 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Avanigadda seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her friends, relatives, henchmen, servants and kith and kin from interfering and obstructing his possession over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff claimed to be the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property on the pleading that he is the brother-in-law of Chodavarapu Subbaiah and his wife's only brother. Chodavarapu Subbaiah and Chodavarapu Venkaiah were brothers. Subbaiah had got no male issues and had only one daughter by name Lalithamba. Subbaiah brought his brother-in-law, i.e. the plaintiff, to his house at Bhavadevarapalli, Nagayalanka Mandal, Krishna District at the age of 15 years. Since thereafter, the plaintiff was looked after by Subbaiah and after the plaintiff had attained majority, he was married to Lalithamba in the year 1965. Lalithamba died in 1971 due to snakebite. Thereafter, Subbaiah performed plaintiff's marriage with his brother Venkaiah's second daughter Padmavathi in May, 1971. In the same month and year, Subbaiah and his wife executed a Will Deed in favour of the plaintiff and, then, in June, 1971, partition took place between the two brothers. Venkaiah, second father-in-law of the plaintiff, along with his wife Seethamma, gifted Ac.1.00 cents of land in Sy.No.307, Patta No.1438 in favour of the plaintiff and his wife Padmavathi. In a cyclone that hit the area in November, 1977, Subbaiah, his wife Venkatarathnamma, Venkaiah and his wife Seethamma and the plaintiff's wife Padmavathi, died. The plaintiff, thereafter, constructed the suit house.
4. It is further pleaded that defendant is the married daughter of Venkaiah, resident of Avanigadda and she has got no right, title or interest in the plaint schedule property. However, she has unnecessarily interfered and obstructed in plaintiff's possession over the plaint schedule property. The defendant being the adjacent landowner has been trying to encroach upon the suit land with the help of antisocial elements without there being any semblance of right, title or interest in the suit schedule property.
5. The defendant contested the suit on the pleadings, inter alia, that the plaintiff never had any title or possession over the plaint A and B schedule properties and denied all material plaint allegations. The plaint averment of execution of Will by Subbaiah and his wife Raghavamma and execution of Gift Deed by Venkaiah and his wife as also the event of partition were all specifically denied.
6. The suit is filed for two properties. The first property in schedule 'A' is total extent of Ac.2.43 cents in two parts, i.e. (1) Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.807 in P
The plaintiff must succeed on his own strength and not on the weaknesses of the defendant.
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish a clear case for granting such relief, not on the weaknesses of the defendant's case.
A gift deed is ineffective if the donor lacks title to the property, as established by evidence indicating a prior family partition.
Title claims require appropriate documentation; failure to prove ownership and non-joinder of necessary parties renders suit invalid.
The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law, and it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such questions arise.
The burden of proof for claims of oral partition lies with the party asserting it, and failure to establish legal ownership results in dismissal of the suit.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.