Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Kandregula Rama Babu and others – Appellant
Versus
Kondapalli Venkata Lakshmi and others – Respondent
CRP No.2564 of 2024
Decided on : 05-11-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial overview of the case and procedural history. (Para 1) |
| 2. details of parties and procedural history (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding preliminary issues and adoption (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. discussion on the challenges regarding issues on legal adoption. (Para 8) |
| 5. analysis of preliminary issues presented by the petitioners. (Para 11) |
| 6. court's authority on mixed questions of law and fact (Para 12 , 13 , 18) |
| 7. legal precedents regarding trial court jurisdiction and mixed issues. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 8. principles regarding preliminary issues decision (Para 15 , 17 , 19) |
| 9. adoption validity and its legal implications (Para 20 , 22 , 24 , 26) |
| 10. clarification on whether legal consequences of adoption can be decided as preliminary issues. (Para 21 , 23) |
| 11. final determination and dismissal of the petition (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Prabhala Raja Sekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are the defendants 6 to 9 in OS No.28 of 2014 on the file of the X Additional District Judge at Anakapalli.
3. The plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed OS No.12 of 1988, which was renumbered as OS No.28 of 2014. The suit is for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties alongwith the structures constructed thereon after eviction of the defendants as also for cancellation of the sale deeds in their favour.
4. The petitioners filed IA No.101 of 2022 with the prayer to decide the Issue Nos.3 to 8 as preliminary issues, under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'C.P.C.').
5. By the impugned order, the IA No.101 of 2022 has been dismissed on 07.05.2024.
6. Challenging the order dated 07.05.2024, the civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court ought to have decided those Issue Nos.3 to 8, as preliminary issues, as the question of legal effect of adoption was involved. He submits that as per Section 12 (c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption. He submits that the deceased died on 30.08.1957 and the adoption was made by the deed of adoption on 31.08.1957 by the widow of the deceased.
8. I have considered the aforesaid submission and perused the material on record.
9. On a query made, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the factum of adoption is also under challenge in the suit.
10. Those Issue Nos.3 to 8, sought to be tried as preliminary issues, are as under:
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the cancellation of Registered Sale Deed dated 14.02.1985 executed in favour of first defendant and Registered Sale Deed dated 01.04.1982 executed in favour of second defendant by late Kondapalli Venkata Ratnam?
(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of Registered Sale Deed dated 18.03.1998 executed in favour of third defendant by second defendant and also Registered Sale Deed dated 12.12.1998 executed by the third defendant?
(vi) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to challenge the alienation made by late Kondapalli Venkata Ratnam after her demise in view of the findings given in decree and judgment dated 18.11.2004 in OS No.12 of 1988 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Anakapalle?
(vii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of the Plaint Schedule Property as prayed for?
(viii) Whether the suit for mere recovery of possession or cancellation of sale deeds is not maintainable without the prayer for declaration of title of the plaintiffs in respect of the schedule property?
11. A bare reading of Issue Nos.3 to 8 shows that those are not
A court cannot decide mixed questions of law and fact as preliminary issues; they must be resolved through trial with evidence, particularly in cases concerning adoption validity.
The court retains discretion to decide preliminary issues related to jurisdiction or limitation but may also resolve all issues simultaneously to avoid protracted litigation.
Disputed factual issues in a partition suit prevent legal questions from being decided as preliminary issues under Order XIV Rule 2(2) of the CPC.
(1) CPC confers no jurisdiction upon Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue and where decision on issue depends upon question of fact, it cannot be tried as a prel....
The Court clarified that mixed questions of fact and law, such as maintainability of a suit based on admissions, cannot be decided as a preliminary issue unless the facts are clear from the pleadings....
Jurisdictional questions, including maintainability of a suit, must be assessed as preliminary issues under CPC Order 14 Rule 2 to ensure efficiency in legal proceedings.
Point of law: Capacity of a male Hindu to take in adoption-Any male Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or a daughter in adoption. Provided that, if he has a ....
A disputed question cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.
It is better that the members of the bar shall file draft issues before framing of issues by the Courts and filing of draft issues before framing of issues by the Courts, will assist the trial Court ....
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
