Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A V Ravindra Babu, J.
Katta Kanaka Durga @ Katta Durgamma W/o. Nageswara Rao- Petitioner
Versus
Nuthalapati Triveni W/o Baji Chowdary @ Baji and ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No. 229 of 2020
Decided On : 12-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri P. Veera Reddy, Rep. Smt.Marella Radha.
For the Respondent: Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi
The court affirmed that a suit for recovery of possession is maintainable without seeking a declaration of title when the title is not seriously disputed, emphasizing the rights of Class-I legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act.
Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Recovery of possession - Plaintiffs claimed ownership through a will and subsequent sale deed; defendant contested based on alleged customary divorce and intestacy - Court found plaintiffs as Class-I legal heirs and upheld the sale deed despite challenges to the will's validity - Defendant failed to prove customary divorce and paternity claims. (Paras 1, 8, 10, 36, 42)
(B) Legal heirs - Definition and rights - The court clarified the status of legal heirs under Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing that mere familial ties do not confer property rights without testamentary succession. (Paras 36, 42)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought recovery of property based on a will executed by their ancestor, while the defendant claimed rights through alleged customary divorce and intestate succession. The court examined the validity of the will and the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' claims.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs were the rightful heirs and that the defendant could not substantiate her claims regarding customary divorce or the will's invalidity.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the will, the existence of a customary divorce, and the maintainability of the suit without a declaration of title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs, as Class-I legal heirs, had the right to recover possession based on the sale deed, and the defendant's claims were unsubstantiated. The court emphasized that the absence of a declaration of title does not bar a suit for possession when the title is not disputed.
Result: Appeal dismissed; plaintiffs directed to recover possession.
JUDGMENT:
Challenge in this Appeal Suit is to the judgment and decree, dated 02.07.2020, in Original Suit No.79 of 2016, on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District (for short, ‘the learned Additional District Judge’) where under the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffs directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property and deliver possession thereof within one (1) month from the date of decree failing which the plaintiffs are at liberty to execute the decree by due process of law.
2. The parties to the Appeal Suit will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, according to the averments of the plaint in O.S. No.79 of 2016 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali is that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of one Palaparthi Satyanarayana, S/o. Peda Rama Swami of Islampet, Tenali. The said Satyanarayana had a younger brother by name Palaparthi Venkateswara Rao. The said Venkateswara Rao, during his life time, did not look after his wife and children properly, left them to their fate and used to roam around the roads like an aimless man. Family members of Venkateswara Rao used to suffer for food, clothing and money. On humanitarian grounds, Palaparthi Satyanarayana used to provide food and clothing to the children of his younger brother, though he has knowledge that the family members of his younger brother are disloyal people.
(i) Palaparthi Satyanarayana was blessed with a male child namely Chidambara Koti Venkata Ramana @ Babu (hereinafter referred to as Ramana @ Babu). Even in the childhood days of Ramana @ Babu, Palaparthi Satyanarayana fell sick. On account of the suspicious characters of his younger brother’s family members, he executed a Registered Will in connection with his property i.e., the schedule property on 15.07.1980 at Sub-Registrar’s Office, Tenali vide document No.115/1980 and later on 06.02.1981 he passed away. The said registered will is the final testament of Palaparthi Satyanarayana. According to the terms of the will, suit schedule property will devolve upon his two wives with limited rights and, after their death, the total property will go to Ramana @ Babu with limited interest and limited rights. As per another recital of the will after the lifetime of Ramana @ Babu, the entire property will go to his children with absolute rights.
(ii) Ramana @ Babu married one Palaparthi Bikshavathi on 11.11.1999 at Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswara Swami Vari Devastanams at Vykunthapuram, Tenali of Guntur District as per the customs of Hindu religion in the presence of elders and well wishers. Subsequently, they were blessed with two male children viz., Palaparthi Satheesh and Palaparthi Rama Krishna on 16.06.2001 and 18.11.2004 respectively. Unfortunately, on 05.02.2007, elder son of Ramana @ Babu viz., Satheesh died. Ramana @ Babu who developed more affection towards his elder son unable to digest the issue of his death, got addicted to alcohol and other vices as such his health was deteriorated, due to which, Ramana @ Babu and his wife Bikshavathi started to go around the hospital for treatment of Ramana @ Babu. At this juncture, 4 years ago, defendant entered into the house portion of the suit property pleading that her husband’s health condition was not good and promising that she will look after the son of Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi i.e., Palaparthi Rama Krishna. Bikshavathi and her husband accepted the proposal of the defendant to allow her to stay in a portion in the premises on free of cost. By then, Bikshavathi and her husband were unable to guess the intention of the defendant. Ramana @ Babu did not recover from his ill-health and passed away on 23.03.2012. As per the Will of Palaparthi Satyanarayana, the suit property ultimately fell to Palaparthi Rama Krishna, who is the son o
