This common second appeal challenged a trial court's judgment in two partition suits. The court dismissed the appeals at the admission stage, finding no substantial questions of law.
Direct dismissal of both Second Appeals without substantial question of law arising and at admission stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO SECOND APPEAL Nos.757 and 813 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT:
In these two Second Appeals, the appellant is one and the same, the 1st respondent in S.A.No.757 of 2016 is 5th respondent in S.A.No.813 of 2016 and 2nd respondent in S.A.No.857 of 2016 is the relative of both the above parties. All parties also belong to the same family. Therefore both the Second Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.
MSR,J S.A.Nos.757 and 813 of 2016
2
PLEADINGS IN O.S.No.135 of 2000:
She alleged that after the death of her husband, Rama Raju, with the help of his grandson, beat her on 09-12-1999 and tried to drive her out of the house; that he was making preparations to create some documents claiming that the property is his property and not the property given to her husband; that a Will executed by her husband was stolen by Rama Raju and Seethamma; that in half share of Rama
MSR,J S.A.Nos.757 and 813 of 2016
3
Raju and Seethamma in the plaint schedule properties, she is entitled to 1/5th share apart from a half share in the half share of her husband; and thus she is entitled to thus 7/10th share in these 2 items of property after evicting the daughters of Rama Raju and Seethamma.
They denied that there was any settlement or agreement through elders at the time of marriage of Sarada Lakshmi with Venkata Narasimha Raju to allot the plaint schedule property as the exclusive share to Venkata Narasimha Raju, that he never enjoyed the property in his own right and interest, and Sarada Lakshmi has no right over the property.
They contended that the plaint schedule properties originally belong to Ramaraju; that they are his absolute property; that Ramaraju and his wife Seethamma were never cared or looked after by Venkata Narasimha Raju; during the lifetime of Ramaraju, they were looked after by their daughters Annapurna and Vijayalakshmi.
They contended that Ramaraju executed a registered Will Ex.B1 dt.28-12-1989 giving item-1 of plaint schedule property to Annapurna and item-2 house property to Vijayalakshmi; the said Will came into operation after the death of Ramaraju; and that it was acted upon and the properties are being enjoyed by Annapurna and
MSR,J S.A.Nos.757 and 813 of 2016
4
Vijayalakshmi. They contended that Saradalakshmi has nothing to do with them and she is not in possession of the said properties.
They however admitted that Sarada Lakshmi got the share of her husband to the north of item-1 of the schedule property and she cannot make any claim with her daughter Prasoona over the southern side properties which exclusively belonged to Ramaraju. Other allegations were denied.
PLEADINGS IN O.S.No.216 of 2000:
She alleged that this property belonged to her father Ramaraju, that it is her absolute property, that he died on 04-03-2000, that during the lifetime of Ramaraju, he was looked after by his daughters and he executed Ex.B-1 Will dt.28-12-1999 in her favour bequeathing this property to her and the house property to Vijayalakshmi.
It is specifically contended that out of total extent of Ac.0.56 ½ cts obtained by Ramaraju in a partition with his brothers in 1960, an
MSR,J S.A.Nos.757 and 813 of 2016
5
extent of Ac.0.28 ¼ cts was given to her (Annapurna) and that Sarada Lakshmi was in possession of the balance extent.
She alleged that Sarada Lakshmi and Ramakrishna Raju were not allowing her to enjoy her property and so she filed the suit.
They denied that the plaint schedule property belonged to Ramaraju and he executed the Will Ex.B-1 were denied.
They contended that Ramaraju’s father Venkataraju had only Ac.1.62 cts, that he died in 1971 and thereafter his three sons and three daughters partitioned properties and executed a partition list on 11-10-1976, that in the said partition, Ramaraju got only Ac.22.00 cts and so he could not have given Ac.0.28 ½ cts to Annapurna under the Will.
They denied the plaint plan also. They alleged that Sarada Lakshmi was enjoying her husband’s share of Ac.0.27 cts and contended that Annapurna was not in possession of the land.
MSR,J S.A.Nos.757 and 813 of 2016
6
MSR,J S.A.Nos.757 and 813 of 2016
7
possession of Sarada Lakshmi must have also been given by Ramaraju to Venkata Narasimha Raju. It held that Ex.B-3 pass book of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society showed that Ramaraju had mortgaged Ac.0.56 ½ cts in R.S.No.182/23, and if he had not got this land in the partition with his brothers, he could not have mortgaged it to the Society. It held that Sarada Lakshmi’s mother Suryakantham was examined as D.W.1 and she stated that the marriage alliance between Sarada Lakshmi and Venkata Narasimha Raju was fixed so that the properties would not go out of the family and so the theory set up by Sarada Lakshmi that the marriage was performed only after the plaint schedule property was given to her husband, is false. It also noted that Suryakantham admitted that Venkata Narasimha Raju was given Ac.0.27 ½ cts out of Ac.0.56 ½ cts which Ramaraju got in the partition between himself and his brothers and that the suit was filed for Ac.0.27 ½ cts which Ramaraju had given to Annapurna under Ex.B-1. It therefore concluded after considering the evidence of Annapurna (D.W.2) that she is in possession of the land given to her by Ramaraju and that land had nothing to do with the land given to Venkata Narasimha Raju. It also held that Ex.B-1 Will is genuine. It however held that there was no evidence that item-2 house property in O.S.No.130 of 2006 was partitioned between Ramaraju and Venkata Narasimha Raju, that the latter could not have improved the said house property, that since the said item is admittedly joint family property, under Ex.B-1 Will, exclusive rights could not have been
MSR,J S.A.Nos.757 and 813 of 2016
8
created in favour of Vijayalakshmi for this item and this item requires to be partitioned between Sarada Lakshmi and Prasoona, that half share therein would go to them and the other half can be retained by Vijayalakshmi. It also directed Vijayalakshmi to pay profits to Saradalakshmi to this extent of item-2. It also held that Annapurna is entitled to injunction against Sarada Lakshmi and Ramakrishna Raju.
MSR,J S.A.Nos.757 and 813 of 2016
9
respective schedules seems to suggest that they are same and not different as contended by Annapurna though Annapurna’s contention has been accepted by both the Courts below. He wanted this Court allow the Second Appeals and remand the matter back to the trial Court or the lower appellate Court for getting the land localised to do justice between the parties.
MSR,J S.A.Nos.757 and 813 of 2016
10
has been given a share in the item-2 house property in the said suit and this is impermissible in law.
1 (1983) 2 SCC 132
MSR,J S.A.Nos.757 and 813 of 2016
11
such a course of action cannot be permitted, the Court declined the request of the counsel for the appellant.
Appeals shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date: 28-03-2017 Vsv/Kvr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeals should be remanded to the trial court for localisation of disputed property boundaries.
Whether a respondent who failed to file a Written Statement in the lower court is entitled to a share in contested property based solely on the trial court's admission of their claim.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhagwan SwaroopApplied¶22
Bhagwan Swaroop v. Mool Chand
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SARADA LAKSHMI
RAMAKRISHNA RAJU
ANAPURNA
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
