Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 35072
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G.RADHA RANI, J
Pendyala Narasimham – Appellant
Versus
Pendyala Venkata Narasimha Rao – Respondent
I.A.No.2 of 2020 | A.S.No.83 of 2020 | APPEAL SUIT No.83 of 2020 | C.C.No.691 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri V. Ramana
For the Respondents: Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy
The court ruled that without proper pleadings regarding joint family property, an amendment for partition cannot be granted, as relief must be supported by evidence and claims established in the suit.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 16(3) - Appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession - Plaintiffs claimed to be the legal heirs of deceased; defendants claimed legitimacy based on a will - Trial court ruled both parties are co-owners, allowing for partition if pursued separately - Appeal dismissed, maintaining trial court's findings. (Paras 6, 31, 32)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 7 - Court's power to grant lesser relief even if not specifically prayed for - Amendment for partition denied due to lack of pleadings and evidence on joint family property. (Paras 10, 25, 30)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs, natural daughters of deceased, filed suit for title and possession of property, claiming illegitimacy of defendants. Defendants countered with claims of legitimacy and ownership based on a will. The trial court found both parties to be co-owners. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's decision to dismiss the suit was upheld, as plaintiffs failed to establish exclusive ownership. The relief of partition was distinct and required separate evidence. (Paras 31, 32)
Issues: The main questions were whether the amendment for partition could be allowed and if the trial court's dismissal was justified. (Paras 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of pleadings regarding joint family property precluded granting of partition. Relief must be grounded in established claims. (Paras 25, 30)
Result: Appeal dismissed, confirming the trial court's decision.
JUDGMENT:
This Appeal is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs 1 to 3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2020 passed in O.S.No.17 of 2014 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar District at Gadwal in dismissing the suit filed by them for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and recovery of damages of Rs.3,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum.
2. As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 were the natural daughters of late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud through his legally wedded wife by name, Narayanamma @ Shyamalamma, who died in the year 1960. During the life time of late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud, he developed illicit relationship with one Ediga Mallamma, defendant No.1 and gave birth to defendants 2 to 7. Since there was no valid marriage between late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud and Ediga Mallamma, the defendants 2 to 7 should be regarded as illegitimate children. After the death of Nadipi Sunkanna Goud, the suit schedule properties were devolved upon plaintiffs 1 to 3 and they were cultivating the same through defendants 6 and 7, who used to manage the cultivation affairs and account for the yield and used to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum to the plaintiffs. Taking advantage of their close access to the estate affairs of the suit property, defendants 6 and 7 managed the revenue authorities and got their names mutated in the revenue records, as if they were the legal heirs of late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud and after such mutation, they refused to give the agricultural usufruct to the plaintiffs. In the month of October 2013, they claimed their exclusive rights over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs convened a panchayath through elders and got issued a legal notice on 05.11.2013 demanding delivery of possession of suit schedule properties. Defendants 1, 6 and 7 got issued reply notice on 25.11.2013 with false allegations, as such, they filed the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and damages.
3. The defendant No.7 filed written statement. The same was adopted by defendants 1 to 6. The defendants admitted their relationship with plaintiffs, but denied that late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud had not married the defendant No.1 after the marriage of plaintiff’s mother. They contended that defendant No.1 was the legally wedded wife of late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud and defendants 2 to 7 were his legitimate children. The marriages of the plaintiffs were performed by late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud. He gave sufficient amount and gold in the form of ornaments to the plaintiffs at the time of their marriages. As such, the plaintiffs were not having any right or share in the suit schedule properties. After the death of Nadipi Sunkanna Goud in the year 2002, the suit schedule properties devolved upon the defendants. By virtue of Will Deed dated 30.05.1995, executed by late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud, the defendants 6 and 7 partitioned the suit schedule properties in the year 2003 and the Mandal Revenue Officer issued mutation proceedings.
4. Basing on the said pleadings, the trial court framed the issues as follows:
i. Whether the defendant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud?
ii. Whether the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of Nadipi Sunkanna Goud?
iii. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they are the owners of the suit property and to recover the suit property?
iv. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages as prayed for?
v. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits as prayed for?
vi. To what relief?
5. The plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW.1 and got examined two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked the documents Exs.A1 to A15 on their behalf. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.7 was examined as DW.1 and a third party as DW.2, the scribe and attestors to Will Deed as DWs.3 to 5 and got marked Exs.B1 to B22.
6. The trial court, on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record held that, the
