Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
Devarapalli Malla Reddy (died)
& Ors. —Appellants
versus
Gadiyam Hanumavamma & Ors. —Respondents
Second Appeal No. 1337 of 2011
Decided on 11.11.2011
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. M. Ram Mohan for Mr. M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. P. Ravi Kiran, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
There cannot be a better proof than the admission of a fact in issue by the defendant in a suit.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100—Second appeal—Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of suit schedule properties —Decreed by trial court—Appeal dismissed—Second Appeal—There cannot be a better proof than the admission of a fact in issue by defendant in a suit—Though the plea of appellants was that only life interest was created in “V”, Ex A2 disclosed an admission on their part about compromise through which suit properties accrued to “V” Thereafter her interest in suit properties enlarged by operation of section 14(1) of HMA—Respondent 1 based her claim to suit schedule properties on a will executed by “V”—No suspicious circumstances pointed out by appellants—Courts below took correct view of matter—No reason to interfere with same —Second Appeal dismissed. (Para 13 to 15)
Result: Appeal Dismissed.
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.— The defendants in 0.S.No.9 of 2002 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur are the appellants. They feel aggrieved by the decree, dated 02.02.2010, passed by the trial Court in that suit and dismissal of A.S.No.55 of2010, dated 07.07.2011, by the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ongole.
2. Respondent No.1 herein filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule properties, comprising of 5 items of landed property of about Acs.2.25 cents at different places and a plot of 320 square yards. The .case stated by respondent No.1 was as under:
3. One Sri Ravuri Kotareddy had a son by name Mallareddy, who, in turn, was married to Venkata Subbamma. Mallareddy predeceased Kotareddy. Venkata Subbamma filed O.S. No.911 of 1934 in the Court of the District Munsif, Kanigiri against her father- in-law for maintenance. During the pendency of the suit, Kotareddy died and his wife Kotamma was brought on record as defendant No.2. A compromise was entered into, in which the suit schedule properties herein were given to Venkata Subbamma. Through a Will, dated 09.05.1991, Venkata Subbamma bequeathed the suit schedule properties to respondent No.1, who is the daughter of her sister. She became absolute owner and possessor after death of Venkata Subbamma on 02.01.1995
4. It was pleaded that the appellants, who are the lineal descendants of the daughter of Kotareddy, forcibly evicted her from the properties.
5. The appellants filed a written statement opposing the suit. According to them, application for compromise filed in O.S.No.911 of 1934 was dismissed on 10.07.1935 and there was no compromise decree at all. They stated that certain items of property that were given to Venkata Subbamma for enjoyment during her life time have reverted to the lineal descendants of Kotareddy after her death.
6. The trial Court decreed the suit and the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed.
7. Sri M. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the sole basis for respondent No.1 to claim title and to seek recovery of possession of the suit property was the alleged compromise decree in O.S.No.911 of 1934 and though she failed to prove the existence of such a decree, the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have accepted her case. The learned counsel further submits that the record clearly discloses that an application filed for compromise in that suit was dismissed. It is urged that mentioning of certain facts in the notice issued on behalf of the appellants, cannot constitute the basis for the claim of respondent No.1.
8. Sri P. Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, submits that the entitlement of Venkata Subbamma to share the properties from the family is not at all in doubt and that the appellants themselves acknowledged the existence of a compromise between Venkata Subbamma and her mother-in-law Kotamma, while issuing Ex.A2.
9. The suit was filed by respondent No.1 as indigent person. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his title in ‘A’ schedule property?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of ‘A schedule?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for masne profits?
10. On behalf of respondent No.1, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5were filed. On behalf of the appellants, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were filed. The suit was decreed and in A.S.No.55 of 2010, the lower appellate Court framed the following two points for its consideration:
(1) Whether the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties were given to Ravuri Venkata Subbamma towards her pre-existing right of maintenance and whether the limited rights given to her enlarged into absolute estate by virtue of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act?
(2) Whether the plaintiff has got rights in the schedule properties and is entitled for recovery
