Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Second Appeal No. 1383 of 2004

Disposition

dismissed

Advocates

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. M.V.S Suresh Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. A. Giridhar Rao Mr. P. Venkat Rao

Judges

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant (the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 84 of 1989, Subordinate Judge, Markapur) sued for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of two schedule properties: Item No. 1 — a house at Nekhunambad Village; and Item No. 2 — 3 acres 74 cents of land at Salakalaveedu Village, Prakasam District. He pleaded that Item No. 2 and the eastern portion of Item No. 1 fell to his share in a family partition in 1966, and that he later purchased the western portion of Item No. 1 from one Maturi Subbarangaiah, claiming exclusive possession thereafter.

The appellant asserted that revenue records and proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal confirm his ownership and possession, and alleged threatened dispossession by respondents and their followers one week before filing the suit.

Respondent/defendants (including the daughters of late Maturi Subbarangaiah and the legal representatives of another respondent) denied the appellant's claim, averring that the schedule properties were self-acquired by Subbarangaiah, that the appellant was a stranger to the Maturi family (surname allegedly Darimadugu and native of Racherla), and that Subbarangaiah executed a Will dated 09-01-1984 in favour of respondent No.1. They also alleged matters concerning O.S. No. 60 of 1971 (a maintenance suit by Maturi Rangasayamma).

The trial court dismissed the suit by judgment dated 17-04-1996. The appellant appealed (A.S. No. 138 of 1996) to the IV Additional District Judge, Ongole (Fast Track Court); the appeal was dismissed on 30-06-2004. The appellant then filed the present Second Appeal, which is the subject of this opinion.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of title over the plaint schedule properties as prayed for (trial Issue 1).
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon or dispossessing the plaintiff from the plaint schedule properties (trial Issue 2).
Whether the Will alleged to have been executed by late Maturi Subbarangaiah is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff (the trial court framed this as the will dated 09-01-1994 in its issues; the pleading and other parts of the record refer to a will dated 09-01-1984) (trial Issue 3 / appellate point regarding Ex.B1).
Whether alleged admissions made by late Maturi Subbarangaiah are true, valid and binding on defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and their effect (trial Issue 4).
Whether the sale deed dated 22-06-1989 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff (trial Issue 5).
Whether the cause of action set up in the plaint is true (trial Issue 6).
Whether defendant Nos.1 and 4 to 10 are necessary parties to the suit (trial Issue 7).
Whether the suit is barred under Section 58 of the Limitation Act (appellate point).
Whether Ex.B1 (the will dated 09-01-1984 as identified by the lower appellate court) is genuine and whether it binds the plaintiff (appellate points 2 and 3).
Whether the partition pleaded by the plaintiff (said to have taken place in 1966) is true, valid and binding on the defendants (appellate point).
Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property on or before the date of the suit (appellate point).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant produced various documents including orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal (Ex.A-1), a sale deed from Subba Rangaiah in his favour (Ex.A-2), and a certified copy of a deposition in O.S. No. 60 of 1971 (Ex.A-5), among other documents (Exs. A-1 to A-7).
He argued that these materials, together with entries in revenue records and tribunal proceedings, supported his claim of title and possession, and that excessive importance was given by the courts below to certain revenue proceedings.
The appellant contended that despite the documentary and oral evidence produced, relief was wrongly denied by the trial court and the lower appellate court.

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents contended that the suit was speculative and the appellant's claim was false; he was neither a coparcener nor co-owner in the Maturi family and had no right to plead partition with Subbarangaiah.
They asserted that the appellant was a stranger (surname alleged Darimadugu, native of Racherla) and that his father was a farm servant in Subbarangaiah's house.
They relied on the existence of a Will (allegedly dated 09-01-1984) in favour of respondent No.1 and on the trial court and lower appellate court findings that Item No.1 and the property said to have been purchased under Ex.A-2 were different and that the appellant never acquired title over Item No.2.
Respondents further argued that the appellant attempted to take advantage of his acquaintance with Subbarangaiah and differences between Subbarangaiah and his wife to appropriate property wrongly.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded through the following analytical steps, as reflected in the opinion:

The court stated the legal principle that an individual can acquire title by virtue of a partition; where the partition is by decree or written document that instrument will strongly support title. If the partition is oral, the party pleading it must prove it by appropriate evidence (depositions of those allotted shares or acquainted with the partition, or revenue records reflecting the partition).
The court examined the appellant's pleadings and evidence and found that, beyond a bare assertion that the property fell to his share, the appellant did not elaborate the manner of partition. The court listed essential aspects required to be pleaded and proved for partition — composition of the joint family/coparcenary, existence of the properties, and the shares allotted to coparceners (in particular the person pleading partition) — and observed that the plaint was silent on these points.
The court explained that when a defendant not only specifically denies a plea but presents a fresh case, the plaintiff is obliged to file a rejoinder and to prove the pleaded facts. Here, defendants pleaded that the appellant was a stranger, that no partition occurred in Subbarangaiah's lifetime, and that the appellant's father was a servant; the appellant did not file a rejoinder nor prove the factum of partition. The court concluded there was a clear failure by the appellant to prove his pleaded case.
The court addressed the appellant's reliance on certain documents: Ex.A-1 (orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal) and Ex.A-5 (deposition of Subbarangaiah in O.S. No. 60 of 1971). The court held that an observation by the Land Reforms Tribunal does not by itself confer title. As for Ex.A-5, the court noted that the appellant was not a party to O.S. No. 60 of 1971, which was a maintenance suit that ended in compromise; therefore, no rights could be said to have accrued to the appellant from that decree or deposition. The court further observed that depositions given in proceedings which concluded by compromise (or by default) lose significant weight for establishing rights in a separate suit.
The court acknowledged that revenue entries for a period were in favour of the appellant, but noted that respondents caused entries to be altered in their favour (Ex.B-8 was filed). Although Ex.B-1 was not proved, the court stated this did not materially affect the outcome because the appellant had failed to prove the core facts pleaded by him.
On the cumulative assessment of pleading, proof, the nature and source of relied documents, and the evidence as a whole, the court found no basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the lower appellate court.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Second Appeal is dismissed; there shall be no order as to costs.

Implications:

The direct effect is that the judgments of the trial court (dismissing the suit dated 17-04-1996) and the lower appellate court (dismissing A.S. No. 138 of 1996 on 30-06-2004) stand affirmed; the appellant's claims for declaration of title and perpetual injunction are rejected.
The court expressly found that the appellant failed to prove the partition pleaded and that reliance on tribunal observations and depositions in an unrelated maintenance suit did not establish title for the appellant.
No broader legal precedent or new principle of law was laid down by this opinion; it upholds the application of existing principles concerning pleading and proof of partition, the evidentiary weight of tribunal observations and deposition in other suits, and the need to rebut a defendant's fresh case by filing a rejoinder and adducing proof.

Note: All content in this summary is based exclusively on the language and materials contained in the provided opinion. No facts, dates, or legal points have been added beyond what appears in the source text.

Show full summary ...

Maturi Rangaiah v. Mutyala Venkata Lakshamma (Died) And Others

ORDER:

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S No. 84 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Markapur, is the appellant. He filed the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties comprising of Item No. 1: a House at Nekhunambad Village and Item No. 2: Acs.3-74 cents of land at Salakalaveedu village of Prakasam District. He pleaded that item No. 2 and the eastern portion of the item No. 1 fell to his share in a partition that took place in the year 1966 and that thereafter, he purchased the western portion of item No. 1 from one Mr. Maturi Subbarangaiah and ever since then he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. According to him, the 1 respondent was the kept mistress and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (defendant Nos. 2 and 3) are the daughters, of late Maturi Subbarangaiah. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are the legal representatives of the 1 respondent.

2. The appellant pleaded that the entries in the revenue records and the proceedings that ensued before the Land Reforms Tribunal confirm his ownership and possession over the property. His grievance was that one week prior to the filing of the suit, the respondents and their followers, who were shown as defendant Nos. 6 to 10 in the suit, threatened to dispossess him from the property.

3. 2 defendant filed a written statement i.e the 2 respondent herein, and the same was adopted by the other contesting defendants. According to them, the schedule properties are the self-acquisitions of Maturi Subbarangaiah and that the appellant is the stranger to the Maturi family much less related to Subbarangaiah. According to them, the surname of the appellant is Darimadugu and not Maturi, and that he is a native of Racherla village. They further pleaded that the father of the appellant came to the house of Subbarangaiah as a farm servant. It was alleged that Maturi Rangasayamma wife of Subbaraigaiah filed O.S No. 60 of 1971 in the court of District Munsif, Giddalur for maintenance for herself and her daughter, 3 respondent herein, and that the appellant managed to get certain documents filed by Subbarangaiah making him to believe that unless partition is pleaded, charge may be created against all his properties. It was also pleaded that Subbarangiaah executed a Will on 09-01-1984 in favour of the 1 respondent bequeathing the suit schedule properties. They pleaded that the appellant was never in the possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties and that he has no concern whatever.

4. The trial court dismissed the suit through judgment, dated 17-04-1996. The appellant filed A.S No. 138 of 1996 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ongole. The appeal was dismissed on 30-06-2004. Hence, this Second Appeal.

5. M.V.S Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client filed various documents such as, the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal (Ex.A-1), sale deed executed by Subba Rangaiah in favour of the appellant (Ex.A-2), certified copy of deposition in O.S No. 60 of 1971 (Ex.A5) and other documents; and still the relief was not granted. He contends that excessive importance was given to certain proceedings initiated before the revenue authorities that the approach adopted by the trial Court and the lower appellate court cannot be countenanced in law.

6. Sri A. Giridhar Rao & P. Venkat Rao, learned counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that the suit was filed as a speculative measure and that the falsity of the claim in the plaint is evident from the fact that though the appellant was neither coparcener nor co-owner of late Subbaranaigah, partition was pleaded between them. They further submit that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court found that item No. 1 of the schedule property on the one hand and the one said to have been purchased under Ex.A-2 are different from each other and that the appellant never acquired any title over item No. 2 of the schedule property. It is also urged that the appellant made an effort to knock away the property of Subbarangiah by taking advantage of his acquaintance with him, as well as the differences between Subbarangaiah and his wife.

7. The suit was filed for the reliefs of declaration of title and injunction in respect of the schedule properties. While the appellant pleaded that the properties have fallen to his share in a family partition that took place in the year 1966, the respondents flatly denied his entitlement to the suit properties. A detailed written statement was filed narrating the manner in which the appellant got acquaintance with the family of Subbarangaiah and the attempt said to have been made by him, to knock away the properties.

8. The trial court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon plaint schedule properties and dispossession the plaintiff therefrom or from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the same?

3. Whether the will dated 09-01-1994 alleged to have been executed by late Subbarangaih is true, valid and binding on plaintiff?

4. Whether the alleged admissions made by late Maturi Subbarangaiah are true, valid and binding on defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and if so, what are their effect?

5. Whether the sale deed, dated 22-06-1989, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?

6. Whether the cause of action set up in the plaint is true?

7. Whether the defendant Nos. 1 and 4 to 10 are necessary parties to the suit?

9. On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, DWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-

8 were filed.

10. The trial Court appointed a Commissioner. The report and the plan submitted by the Commissioner, were taken on record as Exs.C-1 and C-2. Ex.X-1 is the entry in the Admission Register.

11. Upon dismissal of the suit, the appellant herein filed A.S No. 138 of 1996. The lower appellate court framed the following points for its consideration:-

1. Whether the suit is barred under Section 58 of the Limitation Act?

2. Whether the plaintiff can question the genuineness of Ex.B1 will dated 09-01- 1984?

3. Whether Ex.B1 Will, dated 09-01-1984 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?

4. Whether the partition pleaded by the plaintiff is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

5. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of suit property as on the date of suit or earlier?

The appeal was dismissed.

12. The basic premise on which the appellant claimed the relief of declaration of title was that half of the item No. 1 and the entire item No. 2 of the schedule property have fallen to his share in a family partition that is said to have taken place in the year 1966. Remaining half of the item No. 1 was said to have been purchased by him through Ex.A-2.

13. An individual can certainly acquire title to an item of property, if it has fallen to his share in a partition. If the partition is through a decree of a Court or a written document, filing of the decree or the document, as the case may be, would go a very long way in establishing the title. If on the other hand, the partition is oral, the evidence to prove it, can be adduced. Such evidence may comprise of the depositions of the persons, who were allotted shares, or those acquainted with the partition or the revenue records, that reflect the partition.

14. In the instant case, except stating that the property has fallen to his share, the appellant did not elaborate the manner in which the partition has taken place. The basic aspects that are required to be stated and proved in relation to partition are, the composition of the joint family or coparcenery i.e, the members comprising of it, the existence of the properties that are held by it, the shares that are allotted to various coparceners and in particular, the person pleading the partition. The plaint is blissfully silent in all these aspects.

15. Sometimes, the necessity to prove the facts that are pleaded in a suit may not arise in case the defendants do not dispute it. If there is not only a specific denial, but also a fresh case presented by the defendant, the plaintiff would be under obligation to file a rejoinder apart from proving the facts pleaded by him in the plaint. The plea raised by the defendant that the appellant is a stranger to the Maturi family, his father came to the house of Subbarangaiah as a farm servant and that no partition has taken place during the life time of Subbarangaiah, were not at all contradicted by filing any rejoinder. Added to that, the appellant did not prove the factum of partition much less the details thereof. Hence, there was a clear failure on the part of the appellant to prove the case pleaded by him.

16. Much reliance was placed by the appellant upon orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, filed as Ex.A-1, and deposition of Subbarangaiah in O.S No. 60 of 1971, filed as Ex.A-5. An observation by the Tribunal does not confer title. So far as Ex.A-5 is concerned, the appellant is not a party to O.S No. 60 of 1971 nor that was a suit for declaration of any rights. It was suit filed by the wife of Subbarangiah for maintenance and that ended in compromise. No rights can be said to have accrued to the appellant from the decree passed in that suit.

17. The appellant has also relied upon the deposition of Subbarangaiah in O.S No. 60 of 1971 (Ex.A-5). Assuming that there was any admission, it does not enure to the benefit of the appellant, particularly, when the scope of the suit itself was very limited. At any rate, the deposition of a witness in a suit looses its significance, if the suit was either dismissed for default or was decreed on the basis of compromise.

18. It may be true that the entries in the revenue records for a particular period were in favour of the appellant vis-a-vis the suit schedule properties. However, at the instance of the respondents, the entries are said to have been altered in favour of the respondents and Ex.B-8 is filed in that behalf. Though Ex.B-1 was not proved, it does not make much difference, as long as the appellant herein failed to prove facts pleaded by him. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the judgments passed by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court.

19. The second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Maturi Rangaiah v. Mutyala Venkata Lakshamma (Died) And Others

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Maturi Rangaiah v. Mutyala Venkata Lakshamma (Died) And Others

Comments