Dismissed

Turaga Vijaya Saradhi v. Vadluri Someswara Rao (died)

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Mar 2021SA/8/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant challenged the lower courts' dismissal of a partition suit and denial of claims regarding property ownership and gold. The Court held the disputed findings were purely questions of fact and no substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed; No order as to costs; Pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Turaga Vijaya Saradhi Vs Vadluri Someswara Rao (died) — Partition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶2

SECOND APPEAL No.8 of 2017

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The present second appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) by the unsuccessful plaintiff No.2 assailing the decree and judgment dated 28.06.2013 in A.S.No.71 of 2007 on the file of V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) West Godavari at Eluru, whereby while dismissing the appeal, the lower appellant Court has confirmed the decree and judgment dated 30.11.2006 in O.S.No.66 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku.

¶5

The parties in this second appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit for the sake of convenience.

¶6

The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking partition of the plaint A schedule properties into two equal shares and to allot one such share; for return of ‘B’ schedule property and to render accounts with regard to income realized from ‘A’ schedule properties and to grant future profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of property.

¶7

It is stated that the 1^st plaintiff is the fostered daughter of 1^st defendant, who performed her marriage. The 1^st defendant is having the schedule properties and declared that he will give half of the share in the properties to the 1^st plaintiff as

¶8

¶9

pasupukunkuma and he used to manage the said properties. The gold of the 1^st plaintiff was kept with the 1^st defendant for safe custody, which is weighing 18 sovereigns worth Rs.54,000/- as on the date of filing the suit. The 1^st defendant used to represent that he kept the amount in bank for her benefit. The 1^st defendant wrote a letter dated 20.02.1996 about the amount in F.D.R for Rs.30,000/- by October, 1996. The 1^st defendant did not render accounts for the amounts realized from the lands. The amounts are assessed for the present at Rs.90,000/-. The 1^st defendant stated to the 1^st plaintiff that he adopted a boy in the year 1982. Then disputes arose between the parties at the instance of parents of adopted boy. The 1^st defendant used to obtain signatures of 1^st plaintiff and her husband for management of properties, but in view of disputes, the 1^st plaintiff apprehends that he may create false documents. Hence, the suit is filed for partition and other reliefs.

¶10

The 1^st defendant filed written statement contending that the plaintiff is his wife’s younger sister and after death of her father, on the request of his mother-in-law, he looked after the affairs of the marriage including Kanyadanam. The 1^st defendant never declared to give half of his property to the 1^st plaintiff as pasupukunkuma. The 1^st defendant adopted his brother’s son who was aged 2½ months by following the rituals and at that time, his wife presented Rs.10,000/- to the 1^st plaintiff’s children, which was kept with 1^st defendant, for which he

¶11

¶12

addressed a letter asking her to take that amount. The said amount was paid under a receipt dated 04.07.1993 attested by the 1^st plaintiff’s husband. The plaintiff’s husband has been blackmailing the 1^st defendant to get some part of his wealth. The 1^st plaintiff is not entitled for partition and for other reliefs.

¶13

Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

¶14

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of ‘A’ schedule property, if so to what share?

¶15

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the return of value of 18 sovereigns of gold?

¶16

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.90,000/- as claimed in the plaint?

¶17

4) To what relief?

¶18

On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-31. On behalf of defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.B-1.

¶19

After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved thereof, the 2^nd plaintiff preferred appeal and the 1^st appellant Court has dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Assailing the same, the present second appeal is preferred by the 2^nd plaintiff.

¶20

Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthi, learned counsel for the appellant/2^nd plaintiff.

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Courts below ought to have believed the version of the 1^st plaintiff that the 1^st defendant orally agreed to give half of his property to the 1^st plaintiff towards pasupukunkuma, since the 1^st defendant performed the marriage of the 1^st plaintiff. He submits the findings of the Courts below are erroneous and unsustainable and the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence of the appellant in a proper perspective.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the following questions of law have to be considered:

¶24

i) Whether the Courts below properly interpreted Exs.A-1 to A-31?

¶25

ii) Whether the findings of the Courts below by ignoring the admissions on the foot of documentary evidence vitiate the decree and judgment?

¶26

The Courts below having considered the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the oral gift made by the 1^st defendant at the time of marriage of 1^st plaintiff. Further, 18 sovereigns of gold was entrusted to the 1^st defendant and he has liability to return the gold or its value and the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim the income over half share in the plaint A schedule property. Thus, the trial Court on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective answered all the issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. The 1^st appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court in

¶27

¶28

all respects and dismissed the first appeal preferred by the 2^nd plaintiff.

¶29

Having gone through the well-reasoned judgments of the Courts below and having given earnest consideration to the facts and submissions, this Court finds that there is no error or illegality in the findings of the Courts below warranting interference by this Court and that the questions being sought to be raised on the basis that there was oral gift made by the 1^st defendant to give half share in his properties at the time of performing the marriage of 1^st plaintiff and that 1^st defendant was entrusted with 18 sovereigns of gold, cannot be considered as substantial questions of law and that the said questions are purely questions of fact.

¶30

On careful consideration of the questions that are articulated in the grounds and urged in this second appeal, this Court finds that the questions being sought to be raised are not substantial questions of law. Therefore, this Court further finds that no question of law much less a substantial question of law is involved requiring interference with the decree and judgment impugned. The law is well settled that a second appeal shall not be admitted if no substantial question of law arises for consideration and when no substantial question of law is involved. In the case on hand, after careful examination of the entire material available on record this Court finds that there is no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission, in

¶31

¶32

view of the narrow compass of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶33

In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications

¶35

are closed.

¶36

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

22^nd March, 2021

PVD

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶41

SECOND APPEAL No.8 of 2017

¶42

22^nd March, 2021

¶43

PVD

Turaga Vijaya Saradhi v. Vadluri Someswara Rao (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Turaga Vijaya Saradhi v. Vadluri Someswara Rao (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathala Srinu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Iragamreddy Naga Dasthagiri Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sahik Simpathi Prakruddin @ Shaik Cheeparthi Fakuruddin @ Shaik Simpathi Fakuruddin Fakruvalli @ Sa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Venkateswara Rao Vs State of Ap

Kanchi Lakshmi, Vs Kanchi Veerabhadra Rao

Leburi Maruthi Krishna, Prakasam Dist Vs L Sailaja, Prakasam Dist