Allowed

Samineni Appaiah v. Samineni Srinivasa Rao

Telangana HC29 Mar 2022SA/1189/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal challenging a decree granting equal shares in joint property. The High Court set aside the appellate court's decision that denied shares to children born from a void marriage, holding they are legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and entitled to equal shares in both ancestral and self-acquired father's property.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal allowed; First Appellate Court judgment set aside; Trial Court decree confirming 1/4th equal share to each heir restored.

Samineni Appaiah Vs Samineni Srinivasa Rao — Succession and Inheritance | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY^{NINTH DAY OF IUARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYTWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT^{JUSTICE P. SREESUDHA}

¶5

SECOND APPEAL^{NO:1189 0F 2013}

¶6

(Appeal Under Section 100 of^{CPCagainstthe Judgement and Decreedated} ol,o2.zol3madeinA,S.No.T8of2OllonthefileoftheCourtoftheSpecialJudge for Trial of^{Cases under SC's and ST's (POA) Act cum Additional District Judgeat} Khammam^{preferred against the Decree in O S No 124of 2005 dated 19 08'2010on} the file^{of the Senior Civil Judge at Khammam)}

¶7

Between: l

¶8

Between: /ni^rl\ vide court^{order dated 10'07'2017}

¶9

,:n

¶10

^.;rfr}.i,'mwruuWl':::":'1'j'fl,;h

¶11

(Respondent^{No 2 is impleaded as per Cot}

¶12

.N^{o:27 83 o} F 20¹³ that^{in the circumstances stated} t.A^.No: , OF^2013SAMP n^151CP -C PraYing P etition^{unde r Sectio} he^{High Court may be Pleased to} t iiled^{in suPPortof the Petition't} in the^{aff idavi} decree^{and Judgement made tn} r Proceedings^{in Pursuance o{ the} staY^{allf urthe} of^{the SPecialJudge for Trial of} 01-02-2013^{on the file} AS Cases^{No. 78 Under SCs and STsof 2011 dt'(POA) Act-Cum-Ad dl. District Judgeat Khammam}

¶13

., 1 OF 20 181 IA^NO

¶14

Between:

¶15

. ^,^!r ^...1 abourer^{in Milk Vending'R/o}

¶16

TtiIi[i[f,r**affi:slirit'ffi"'fl:ui'i#t'i1i::li::,,

¶17

AND

¶18

i 3. i,ledi: SmtlKamineni^Aruna, flitrffi ,Hfflil#:^{:: - ::::il Jj ]T::i:} curtu rist^{R/oGu di m aI Ia}

¶19

; Xl'fl',"*.ftng,ffi Et'SlU:Sf l^!ia[il'g.[i,on. - Viiiuo". rr,rmmam Rural Mandal' Khammam utst' c SamJneni Sakkubai fr);l'5ilil;ry^{p'pp'i'n'R/o Gudimalla Vitlage'} " ii;;;;, Rurat lvanoat,^{Khammam District} ...A''ELLANTS

¶20

...A''ELLANTS

¶21

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatintheCircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to} appoint a receiver^{to manage/administerby taking control of the schedule} properties mentioned in annexed^{petitionby collecting rents or other benefits} accrued thereon thereby^{creditthe same to 0.S.No.'1 24 of 2005, on the file of the} Senior civil Judge Khammam,^{pendingdisposal of the appeal and in the interest} of^justice, and^pass such other^{order or orders as this Hon'ble Courtmay deem} fit and^proper in the circumstances^{of the case. "A' SCHEDULEPROPERTY} Item No.1: Land to an extent^{of Ac.3-29gts in Sy.No.437 situatedin Gudimalla} Grampanchayath Village, Khammam Rural^{Mandal, Khammam District,within the} following boundaries: East: Land of Patel^Ramaiah, West:Land^{of Peda} Nagaiah, North:Land of Patel Chandraiah and Patel Ramaiah, South:^{Land of} Patel Venkataiah. ltem No-2: Land to an extent ol Ac.2-20^gts in sy.no.431 situated in Gudimalla Grampanchayath Village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District, within the following boundaries: East : Land of Vadlamudi Seshaiah, West : Land of Kalla Suraiah, North : Land of Bandlamudi Kotaiah, South : Land of Samineni Pedda Nagaiah. 'B' SCHEDULE PROPERTY House situated in 0A%'A gts in Gudimalla Grampanchayath Village, Khammam Rural Ivlandal, Khammam District, within the following boundaries: East:Land of Samlneni Nagaiah West : House of IVallela Laxmaiah North : House of Kalyanapur Krishna Murthy and way, South : Vacant site.

¶22

''€

¶23

I.A. N 1 F MP, N 15 F20 Petition under Section^{151 CPC} Praying^{that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} vacate the interim stay^{granted in SAMP'No'2783 of 2013 in SA'No'1 189 of 2013} dated 20'3-2014

¶24

For the Appellants:^{SRl. A BHASKARA CHARY, ADVOCATE}

¶25

For Respondents:^{SMT. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA}

¶26

The Court made^{the following: JUDGMENT}

¶27

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE^{P.SREE SUDHA} SECO ND APPEAL No.1189^of2O13

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This Second Appeal is filed by the defendants in the suit and requested the court to set aside the judgement in A.S. No. 78 of 2Ot t, dated 01.02.2013, reversing the decree olthe trial court in O.S. No. 124 of 2005, dated 19.0g.2010. 02. The lirst delendant mainll, contendecl that that appellate eourt held in deciding plaintiff is entitled for half share and defendants Nos.2 to 4 are not coparceners and first delendant failed to prove that the schedule property is ancestral or self-acquired without framing an issue. In fact, the ancestral property inherited by son on the death ol his father should be treated as separate p.operty and thus plaintiff is not entitling for half share. They also stated that the iegal starus ol defendants Nos. 2 to 4 n,as decided and he.td that they urere not coparceners. The finding of the first appellate court rhat plaintilf is coparcener is erroneours and requested to set aside the same.

¶30

¶31

03, One Samineni^{Srinivasa Rao filed O S' No' 124 of 2005} against his^{father/defendantNo' i and defendants Nos' 2 to} 4 and stated^{that he is son of <lefendantNo' 1 through} Samineni^{Rajammaand defendantsNos' 2 to 4 are children} of defendant^{No. 1 through Sakku BaiThe marriage of} defendant^{No. 1 was performed with Rajammain the year} 1968 and^{the piaintiff was born in the year 1970 and his} brotherwasbornintheyearlg72andafteroneyearhis sister was^{born' First defcndant had extra maritai} reiationship^{and driven his mother out of the house and} while he^{was 6 or 7 years o1d' his brother and sister died and} delendant^{No 1 lived with Sakku Bai for 25 yearsand the} plaint schedule^{propertiesare inheritedby defendant No 1} from^{his father Seethaiahwho died in the year 2OO4 as such} he is^{entitied for 7z share in the propertyas he a coparcener} along^{with defendant No' 1' He issued legal noticeto} defendant^{no' 1 and filed suit for partition'}

¶32

2 to^{4 remainedexparte Defendant} 04.^{DefendantsNos'} atement^{and contended that his wife} No.^{tfiled writtenst} towards Rajamma^{deserted hinr and he Paid} Rs.1750/-

¶33

permanent of alimony and the said settlement deed was executed between them. A division of property took place between him and plaintiff and during such division, plaintiff got 20 gts. of land in item No. 1 of plaint "A" schedule towards his share, but he sold the same to the defendant again for a consideration of Rs.500O/-. Item No. 2 of plaint "A" and "B" schedule properties are self_acquired properties and acquired the same after the desertion of his first wile as already partition took place between him and plaintiff, and thus, the piaintilf is not entitled for any share in the properties.

¶34

Plaintiff is examined as pWl and a.lso examined his mother as pW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. First defendant is examined as DWI and other two independence whiteness as DWs 2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to 85. The trial court on considering the entire evidence on record, decreed the suit by ailo tting 1/5 share ro rhe plaintiff in plaint ,,A,, and ,,8,, sched ule properties and the claim of mesne prolits \'as dismissed with a dire ction to file a separate petition under Order 20 Rule 12 C.p.C.

¶35

I LIw

¶36

Aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff^preferredan appeal and contended that the^{petition schedule properties} are ancestral properties as^{such he is entitled for % share} along with his father^{and coparcenerscannotbe equatedto} the illegitimate children.^{The appellalecourt held that} defendant No.^{1 without giving divorceto Rajamma, married} Sakku Bai and^{even in the full and final settlementof} maintenance in a document^{executed on 19'04 1976 it was} not stated that^{he has given divorce to her as such, the} children of defendant^{No. 1 to Sakku Bai are illegitimate} children and^{as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act'} illegitimate son or^{daughterdo not fal1 under Ruiesof} Succession in^{Section 8 of the Act' They relied upon citation} oi the Supreme^{Court reported in GUR NARAIN DAS V/s'} GUR TAHAL DASr^{held that 'illegitimcttechildren does not} acquire ight by birth^{or anu intereslin the} father's^{estate and} thus they cannot^demand- for^{partition during the life time of} his fatLer but after^{ttis death the illegitimate son succeeds as a} coparcener to^{the separateestate of his father along utith} legitimate^{son with a right of suruiuorshipbut illegitimateson} I AIIt I952 SC 225

¶37

¶38

takes onLg one-half of what he tuould haue taken if he u,tas a legitimate son'. Co-parcenary property recognises legitimate children only as child gets right in the property by birth. He can ask lor partition of ancestral property on1y, but father can give his self acquired property to all children, including illegitimate children. Coparceners are placed in high position than illegitimate children, who are recognized as legitimate children under Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, but Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act was amended only to remove the stigma attached to the birth of illegitimate children and it is not intended to bring changes in the Hinclu Succession Act. Otherwise, they should have amended Section B of the Hindu Succession Act and incorporated aI illegitimate children including daughters in the place of coparceners and thus modified the order ol the trial court and held that the plaintiff and his lather/first defendant are entitled for % share each. Whereas defendant Nos. 2 to 4 xe entitled for 1/5 share in the share of his father and accordingly the plaintiff can obtain final decree including mesne profits.

¶39

¶40

Aggrieved by the said order, defendant No. 1 and his children preferred the second appeal but during the pendency of the appeal, defendant No. I died. Delendant^No. 1in his written statement clearly stated^{that there was} division of property between^{himsell and the plaintiffand he} gav e 2 guntas of land in item^{No. I of plailrtschcduleto the} plaintiff, but he sold the same for^{Rs'5000/-to him' The said} previous partition was^{never disputedby the plaintiff at any} point of time. Defendant^{No' 1 contendedthat item No' 2 of} "B"^{schedule properties are his self-} the plaint^{"A" and} after^desertinghis acquired ProPerties^{and he acquired them} that his^{grand father} first^{wife. The plaintiff contended} 2004^{and aftcr his death the} Seethaiah^{died in the Year} his^{father and thus as a} devoived^upon proPerties^rn'ere s entitled^{for % share aiong with his father'} coparcener,^{he i} observed^{if a schedule properties except 2} The^{trial court} are self-acquired^{ProPertlesof the defendants he} gu ntas revenue^{records to show that they are ln} would^{havefiled the} not^{filed any revenue} the^{name of first defendant'but he has} shorv^{that scheduie} record^{or an) reg1stered documcntto} as he^{claimed that the} are^{self-acquiredProPerttes} propertles

¶41

¶42

¶43

said properties are self-acquired properties, the burden is upon him to discharge the same, but he failed to do so as such, the properties can be treated as joint lamily properties. It was also held whether legitimate or illegitimate children are having share over the joint family properties and thus decreed the suit by allotting 1/5 share to each of them.

¶44

As per Section 16 (1)&(2), the children born from void and voidable marriage shall be legitimate and they wili be on par with other legitimate children and be entitled to all rights in the property of their parents. Therefore, such children will have right over the property of their parents whether they are self-acquired or ancestra.l.

¶45

In 1995 (il ALD 4s6, the Andhra . pradesh Htgh Court hetd that tne "li-:::^:""n " the son .n ,n'J!i,X1fil,i,,::*erta inherited ba " ' "r ' c'r JQtner shall be treated as hrs separak not entiued t;:^::':;;'r;fd a son born to him is

¶46

In the case on I the plaintiff is son of first wife and defendanto^ Nos. 2 .,'""0' 4 are the children ol second wife of defendants N". i. pr.' contended that as he is legitimate chird, he shourd ,. ,.'n"u as coparcener and he is entitled for harf share. Thot rgh appellate court considered the

¶47

..V

¶48

¶49

Amendment Section 16⁽¹⁾ and^(2), took^{an opinion that the} said Amendment was introduced only to take^awaysocial stigma on the illegitimate children^{and thus they cannotbe} treated on par with coparcener. But,^{as per Section 16 (3) it} does not impose any^{restrictionon the property rightof} illegitimate children^{except limitir-rgit to thc property of their} parents and such children^{will havea right in the property of} their^{parents whetherit is seli-acquired or anccstralln this} case defendant^{No' 1 marriedRajamma u'hen plaintiff was 6} or 7^{years old, she livedsepararelyalong with plaintiff ' LaLer} defendant^{No' 1 married Sakku Bai and had defendantsNo'} 2 to^{4andthey livedtogetherfor 25 years considerably long} period^{and during the iife time of his fatherdefendantNo' 1'} piaintiff^{sought for partition and also filed suit claiming half} share,^{but the trial court considered the propertiesas joint} famiiy^{proPerties heid that iilegitimatechildrenare also} entitled^{for partition on par with legitimate children and} allotted^{1 / 5 share each' But' the first appellate t""r.t^":",^:t:} interpreting^{the law wrongiy and also Amcndment to Sectron} 16^{(3) in a properperspective and held that plaintiff and}

t-_

defendant No. I are entitled for half share and defendant No. 2 to 4 are entitlcd lor 1 / 5 share in the share of therr father.

¶55

j \

¶56

Admittedly even the illegitimate children are entitled for property of their parents whether it is self_acquired or ancestral. Though plaintiff contended that it is ancestral properry of his grand father Seethaiah he has not filed any documents to substantiate his version. whereas defendant No' 1 stated aJready partition took place between him and his son i.e., plaintifi and he gave Ac. 2.2 gts of land, but plaintilf sold the same again to him lor Rs.SOOO/. That was never denied by the plaintilf at any point of time. He further stated that the other properties are self_acquire Properties' !ug, the tria.l court conclun"n *.]".,,-'tt-acqulred that they are joint family properties. But, as o". o-"rror'ded nent under Section i r ',cctlon 6 (3) whether the ' properties of paren t s ,"-- ^ _ are ancestral or self-acquired, the iliegitimate children who are treated as iegitimate under Section 16 r..tt . .. r...,/ are en titled for righ t it n t he share of rhe property of their parenrs :-':^-'":' o" par rvith legitimate children. Therefore, the order or"ntt 'the first appellate court is liable to be

1t)

<br>

set aside, confirming the^judgment oI thc trial court in O.S.

¶61

\ \

¶62

No. 124 of 2005, dated 19.08.2010

¶63

1 1 . In the result, plaintiff and defendants^Nos. 2 to 4^are entitled lor equal share in the^{propertyof their father i.e.} 1/4tn share to each ol them.

¶64

Pending^{miscellaneouspetitions,ilany' shall also stand} dismissed^{in the light ol this final judgmcnt}

¶65

Sd/- M. VIJAY^BHASKAR DEPUTY^REGIS/RAR

¶66

//TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶67

to", . -n" Aclditional Special Judge for Trial of oistrlct^{Lu'jge iiXit#;;;' ih""i-oitliitt} Cases und.er SCs & STs (PoA) (With Records' Act cum^ir

¶68

;itliirugli'#st"[#.Hpfrrydiif""'!"',$a#",

¶69

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶70

One^{SPare coPY}

IUBC .$u"'

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2910312022

ot (,0
e
N
\il ,"\
i4 .s
'oll
o s\ ojl
u-'-L \ ril
ar
H x- JUDGMENT
SA.No.I189 of 2O1g

¶75

DISPOSING OF THE SECOND APPEAL

¶76

¶77

l<br>

Samineni Appaiah v. Samineni Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samineni Appaiah v. Samineni Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Manazir Ahmed,Karimnagar Vs Mandal Revenue Officer,Karimnagar

Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Ltd. Vs v. Vijay Kumar and 3 Ots

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Vadde Ram Reddy and Another

Sri Lagishetty Papaiah, Vs M/s Laxmi Jewellers, # C4, Mayur Kushal Complex

Syed Qamruddin Vs Smt. a. Manohar Bai (Died) per LRs Rr- 2 to 4

S.Pushpaleela , Pushpa Vs S.Bhaskar