Adavi Seetha Mahalakshmi vs Thota Varamma

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(AP) 226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Adavi Seetha Mahalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Thota Varamma – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : N SRIHARI
For the Respondent: K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO

Judgement Key Points

The court discussed the maintainability of the suit in paragraphs 12 and 28, focusing on whether the plaintiffs had the locus standi to challenge the validity of the gift deed and the transfer of property. In paragraph 12, the court observed that the suit was maintainable because the plaintiffs, being in joint possession and having inherited the property, had a legitimate interest to contest the validity of the transfer. They were entitled to question the legality of the gift deed based on the alleged lack of valid title of the defendant who executed it (!) .

In paragraph 28, the court reaffirmed that the suit was maintainable as it was essentially a suit to declare a transfer invalid and to establish the plaintiffs' rights over the property. The court noted that the plaintiffs' claim was not barred by any legal defect in the suit's framing and that they had sufficient interest to institute the suit. The court further clarified that the validity of the transfer and the ownership rights were justiciable issues, and the suit was properly filed within the legal framework, thus remaining maintainable (!) .

Overall, the court found that the suit was maintainable because the plaintiffs had a legal interest in contesting the transfer and the validity of the gift deed, and the issues raised were within the scope of the court's jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.52 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 05.12.2018, reversing the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.554 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, dated 27.08.2012.

2. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the O.S.No.554 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

During the pendency of the appeal suit before the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, the 2^nd appellant herein died and the appellant Nos.3 to 6 herein are brought on record as legal representatives of the 2^nd appellant. Further during the pendency of this appeal, the 1^st appellant died and her legal representatives are already brought on record as appellant Nos.3 to 6.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.554 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, with a prayer for declaration that the document bearing No.7738 of 2006 of Sub Registrar Office, Mangalagiri, executed by the 2^nd defendant in favour of 1^st defendant on 27.11.2006 is void, inoperative and therefore, it shall be c