Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
V. Srinivasu and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
D. Subba Rao – Respondent
First Appeal No. 47 of 2007
Decided On : 29-04-2024
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Execution of Wills - The trial Court decreed a suit for permanent injunction without addressing the validity of disputed Wills, leading to an erroneous conclusion on title. The court emphasized that a finding on title cannot be made in a suit for injunction unless necessary pleadings and issues are framed. (Paras 21, 26, 27)
(B) Injunction - Nature of suit - The court clarified that a suit for mere injunction does not lie when the defendant raises a genuine dispute regarding title, necessitating a comprehensive suit for declaration of title. (Paras 21, 26)
Facts of the case:
The dispute arose over ancestral property following the death of Srimannarayana, with conflicting claims based on alleged Wills and family arrangements.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court's judgment was set aside due to lack of proper issue framing regarding title and possession.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction and whether the trial Court was justified in its decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial Court erred in determining title in a suit for injunction, which is not permissible under law without appropriate pleadings. (Paras 21, 27)
Result: Appeal allowed; suit dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.
1. The appeal is filed by the defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. No. 22 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Court, West Godavari at Eluru. Respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit.
2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:
(a) It is pleaded that the plaint schedule properties were originally ancestral property of late Vyshnapu Lakshmana of Rajampalem Village. He had two sons viz., Subba Rao and Srimannarayana and daughter Smt. Duggirala Bullemmayi. After the death of Lakshmana, the properties were partitioned among his sons and their mother and subsequently the brothers viz., Subba Rao and Srimannarayana partitioned their properties in which, the schedule property fell to the share of Srimannarayana. The sister of defendants 3 and 4 viz., Posamma was given in marriage to Srimannarayana and through her, defendants 1 and 2 were born. As such, defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Srimannarayana. After the death of Posamma, the said Srimannarayana again married the sister of plaintiff viz., Vijaya Lakshmi. The said Vijaya Lakshmi had no issues. After the death of first wife of Srimannarayana, defendants 3 and 4 being her brothers raised a dispute for partition and consequently, the properties of Srimannarayana were partitioned between defendants 1 and 2.
(b) It is further pleaded that during the life time of Srimannarayana, he executed a Will dated 25-12-2002 in favour of Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi i.e. 2nd wife bequeathing all his properties including the plaint schedule property and subsequently he died on 01-01-2003. As such, Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. Subsequent to the death of her husband, she lived with the plaintiff who is her brother and he looked after her by providing medical treatment etc., and subsequently she died.
(c) It is further pleaded that during the life time of the said Vijaya Lakshmi, she executed a registered Will dated 03-01-2006 in favour of the plaintiff, bequeathing all her properties in his favour including the plaint schedule property and as such, the plaintiff became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.
(d) It is further pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 developed a grouse against the plaintiff with the active support of defendants 3 and 4 and they are trying to knock away the plaint schedule property by illegal means by proclaiming in the village. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.
4. The 1st defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendants 2 to 4 by filing a memo, denying and opposing the averments in the plaint.
(a) It is contended that there is no cause of action for filing the suit. It is further contended that on the death of their mother Posamma, there was a family arrangement of the properties in the presence of elders viz., Vyshnapu Rama Rao, Vyshnapu Subba Rao, Gadde Venkateswara Rao etc., and in the said family arrangement before the elders, it was specifically agreed that whatever properties that have been allotted to the share of Srimannarayana should be enjoyed by Srimannarayana and his 2nd wife for their life time and thereafter they have to devolve on the defendants 1 and 2 only. There was an understanding to that effect at the time of family arrangement of properties. In fact, it was an arrangement among the family members of Srimannarayana, his 2nd wife Vijaya Lakshmi and defendants 1 and 2. After the death of Posamma, Srimannarayana married Vijaya Lakshmi but they have no issues even after a long period. In the said family arrangement, Srimannarayana and his wife Vijaya Lakshmi have specifically agreed and understood that all the properties that are allotted to the share of Srimannarayana have to be enjoyed by Srimannarayana and his 2nd wife Vijaya Lakshmi for their life time and thereafter they should devolve on defendants 1 and 2 only, if Vijaya Lakshmi did not give birth to a
A suit for injunction cannot determine title unless necessary pleadings and issues are framed; the trial Court erred in its judgment by addressing title in a suit for mere injunction.
A Plaintiff can seek a permanent injunction based on possession, even if deriving rights from a disputed Will, as long as the evidence supports their claim and initial possessory rights are establish....
In property disputes, the onus lies on the claimant to prove title, with reliance on unproven wills and agreements leading to dismissal of claims.
The court upheld the trial Court's decree for partition, ruling that the alleged Will was not proved, affirming the properties as joint family assets.
The court established that the burden of proving a will lies with the proponent, who must dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff cannot claim injunction against the true owner without lawful possession and title.
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
