Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
M. Venkata Ramanna, J.
Alapati Rama Mohan Rao – Appellant
versus
Alapati Venkata Ratnamma
and Ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No.13 of 2013
Decided on 24.9.2021
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 90 – Presumption as to documents thirty years old – Its requirements are that document attracting this presumption should be 30 year old and should be produced from proper custody – Period of 30 years shall be reckoned from date when such document is tendered in evidence. (Paras 37 and 38)
(B) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 14 and 30 – Partition of property – Appellant is relying on registered Will in support of his claim – Will was produced during trial from proper custody – Owner of property has normally right to deal with that property including right to devise or bequeath property – He could dispose it of by a testament – Section 30 of Act, not only does not curtail or affect this right, it actually reaffirms that right – Hindu male could testamentarily dispose of his property – When he does that, a succession under the Act stands excluded and property passes to testamentary heirs – Contention of appellant is that his father and he were receiving profits shared by 1st respondent out of these properties from time to time – Bar of limitation to make this claim, stood rejected by both Courts below – Contention of appellant that they remained in joint possession and enjoyment of these properties shall be accepted – Claim of appellant has to be upheld holding that he is entitled to seek partition of suit lands and suit house into two equal half shares and that he is entitled for one such share – Findings recorded by both Courts below are quite erroneous, did not consider material and evidence in right perspective – Second appeal allowed setting aside decrees and judgments of both Courts below – Suit decreed directing division of plaint schedule properties into two (02) equal shares and one such share shall be allotted to appellant. (Paras 30, 60, 68, 69 and 70)
Result: Second Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.14 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem is the appellant. The respondents were the defendants.
2. The appellant laid the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two (02) equal shares and to allot one such share to him directing possession of the same as well as for rendition of accounts, past and future, to pay the same with interest at 12.04% per annum.
3. The plaint schedule describes the properties in dispute as under:
“West Godavari District, Tadepalligudem Rural Mandal, Pedatadepalli Village, Zeroit dry Land in
Item No.1: R.S.No.821/1 full number Ac.1-31 cents= 0.5301439 Hc.
Item No.2:R.S.No.821/2,Ac.1-07 cents full in number=0.4330183 Hc.
Item No.3:R.S.No.784/2 Full in number Ac.0-07 cents= 0.283283 Hc.
Item No.4:West Godavari District, Tadepalligudem rural mandal, Pedatadepalli village, tiled house with D.No.2-43 with site and compound etc., in an extent of 480 sq.yds = 4013.424 sq.m.with doors, windows, roof, garden etc.”
4. Item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule will be referred to hereinafter as ‘the suit lands’ and item No.4 of the plaint schedule will be referred to hereinafter as ‘the suit house’, for convenience.
5. Sri Alapati Ramanna had three (03) sons and a daughter, namely, Sri Ananda Rao, Sri Satyanarayana Murthy and Sri Gopala Krishnarao and Smt. Parimi Suryakantham. Sri Alapati Ramanna died on 12.11.1959. His wife is Smt.Suramma. She died in the year 1967.
6. Smt. Seetharatnamma is the wife of Sri Ananda Rao. She died in the year 1977 and whereas, Sri Ananda Rao died within an year of their marriage.
7. The appellant is the son of Sri Satyanrayana Murthy. The respondent No.5 is the wife of Sri Satyanarayana Murthy. The respondents 6 to 9 are their daughters. Sri Satyanarayana Murthy died on 18.11.1988.
8. The 1st respondent is the wife of Sri Gopala Krishnarao. The respondents 2 and 3 are their sons and respondent No.4 is their daughter. Sri Gopala Krishnarao died on 28.04.1965.
9. O.S.No.36 of 1936 was filed on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Eluru by sons of Sri Alapati Ramanna. It was decreed on contest dividing the ancestral properties, with the burden of clearing the debts and whereas a part of the decree therein was in favour of Sri Alapati Ramanna in respect of his self acquired properties. Later on, one of the creditors, namely, Cooperative Credit Society brought these properties for sale and were disposed of. Hence, there were no properties at all, left for this family.
10. O.S.No.476 of 1953 was filed by Smt. Seetharatnamma for maintenance against Sri Alapati Ramanna as well as his sons- Sri Satyanarayana Murthy and Sri Gopala Krishnarao. Sri Alapati Ramanna accepted the liability stated to be on moral obligation and a compromise decree was passed therein subject to giving away eight (08) bags of paddy and Rs.40/- with a charge upon the properties acquired by Sri Ramanna later on, except the house which was retained by him in the family partition concerned to O.S.No.36 of 1936.
11. These are all the admitted and undisputed facts in this case. Thereafter, whatever acquired by Sri Alapati Ramanna were all his self acquired properties including the suit lands and the suit house.
12. The claim of the appellant is based on a registered Will dated 29.11.1958 of Sri Alapati Ramanna, whereby he had created a bequest in favour of his legal heirs. The suit lands and the suit house apart from another extent of land, were given away under this Will, which is stated to be the last testament of Sri Alapati Ramanna, to his wife Smt. Suramma with life interest and after her, to be shared by both the surviving sons equally.
13. After death of Smt. Suramma in the year 1967, it is the case of the appellant that his father Sri Satyanarayana Murthy and the 1st respondent being the wife of Sri Gopala Krishnarao on her behalf and on behalf of her minor children, took possession of the suit
(1) Presumption as to documents thirty years old – Period of 30 years shall be reckoned from date when such document is tendered in evidence. (2) Hindu male could testamentarily dispose of his proper....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 14(1) and Sec. 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in determining the rights of a female Hindu in p....
Female Hindu inheritance – Objective of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is to create an absolute interest in case of a limited interest of wife where such limited estate owes its origin t....
Hindu Women’s right to maintenance – Right of maintenance is sufficient for property given in lieu thereof to transform into absolute ownership, by way of Section 14(1) of HSA, 1956.
The court clarified the application of Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing the need to include all rightful heirs in partition suits.
Hindu Law – property given to wife - Property had been given to the female Hindu in recognition of or in lieu of her right to maintenance, it was held that the situation fell within the ambit of subs....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a female Hindu possessing property under limited rights, as per Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not have the right to se....
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove a Will as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act, and the distinction between a Settlement deed and a....
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
