Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Uppalapati Vivekanandastyling ... vs Santhi Ashramam, Rep By Its Secretary ... on 1 November, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.860 of 2005
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.736 of 2000 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 07.06.2005, setting aside the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.812 of 1996 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 25.09.1999.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the Original Suit No.812 of 1996 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.812 of 1996 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, with a prayer for cancellation of the gift deed dated 21.12.1949 and recovery of possession from the defendant.
4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first 2 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 appellate Court. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, allowed the first appeal by setting aside the findings of the learned trial judge. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.
5. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.
6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in OS.No.812 of 1996, is as follows:
Swamy Omkar established Santi Ashram and registered the same under the Societies Registration Act vide No.8/1953 at Thotapalli and he established a branch at Pedawaltair. Swamy Omkar purchased an extent of Ac.8.00 cents of land and also anther Ac.2.00 cents of land was donated by the Philanthropic public.
Swamy Omkar purchased, in his name, two properties i.e., Ac.4.54 and Ac 2.00 cents. He executed a registered Gift Deed on 21.12.1949 in favour of Sri Raghavendra Yogeswarulu, where under, it was mentioned that, if for any reason Raghavendra Yogeswarulu or his disciples failed to perform "Dharmam" in the service of people 3 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 and the peace of universe, the land which was subject matter of the Gift deed has to be delivered back to the plaintiff's society. The Gift Deed did not provide an absolute estate but it is only a conditional gift with a right of reversion to the plaintiff's Santhi Ashram of the properties gifted. Sri Raghavendra Swamy executed a Will on 21.11.1984 bequeathing the property covered by the gift deed of 1949 to the Rama Krishna Mission with certain conditions, but the said Rama Krishna Mission did not accept the gift. Sri Raghavendra Swamy died on 12 12.1991. The defendant is staying in the ashram along with his parents. This defendant is staying himself as an adopted son, but Raghavendra swamy could not have made any adoption as he had renounced. Therefore, the defendant was not an adopted son and the alleged adoption is void under law. The schedule property as per the Gift deed will revert back to the Santhi Ashram. While so, the defendant filed OS.No.252 of 1988 against the third party for permanent injunction. As per the plaint in that suit, it is mentioned that the lands are to be utilized for the purpose of Yogashram and Swamy Raghavendra has no right of alienation.
4 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005
7. The brief facts of the written statement, filed by the defendant, are as follows :-
The defendant is not aware whether Swamy Omkar established a registered society under the Societies Registration Act.
He is also not aware whether the property was purchased under a sale deed by Swamy Omkar. He further contend in his written statement that the Swamy Omkar executed a registered Gift Deed dated 21.12.1949, the Gift Deed did not provide any absolute estate in favour of the donee and that it is only a conditional gift. Even if it is assumed that the gift could be revoked it can be done only by the donor but not by the plaintiff. The donor never cancelled the gift deed. The alleged Will is not binding on the defendant. This defendant is running the Ashram being the adopted son of Raghavendra Swamy, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed for and he has no right to cancel the gift deed.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, settled the following issues for trial:
1) whether the gift deed dated 21.12.1949 is a conditional with the right of reversion to the donee/donor?
5 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005
2) Whether late Swamy Omkar executed gift in his personal capacity as the owner of the schedule land or on behalf of plaintiff society?
3) Whether the plaintiff society is competent either to revoke or cancel the gift deed executed by Swamy Omkar?
4) Whether the defendant was adopted by late Raghavendra yogi and if so, it is valid?
5) Whether the defendant is running Yogashramam as the successor of late Raghavendra Yogi?
6) Whether this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?
7) Whether the Court fee paid is correct?
8) Whether the plaintiff's society is entitled for any of the relief prayed In this suit?
9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of plaintiff PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 were marked. On behalf of defendant DW1 to DW9 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked.
10. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed the appeal suit in AS.No.736 of 2000 before the Principal 6 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 Senior Civil Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam, wherein, the following points came up for consideration.
1. Whether the gift deed dated 21.12.1949 is a conditional gift or an absolute gift?
2. Whether the adoption of the defendant by Yogi Raghavendra, is true, valid and in accordance with law?
3. Whether there are any grounds to set aside the findings of the learned trial judge?
11. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, i.e., first appellate judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff and allowed the appeal of the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful respondent in A.S.No.736 of 2000 filed the present second appeal before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
12. When the matter was before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the following substantial questions of law were framed on 22.07.2005:
1. Whether a suit for cancellation of gift deed is maintainable at the instance of a person who himself claims through the very gift deed on the allegation that it is a conditional gift?
7 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005
2. Whether in the absence of a pleading that the premises is not being utilized for the purpose for which gift was made, the gift can be cancelled?
3. Whether the judgment of lower appellate Court is vitiated by its applying Section 31 of Transfer of Property Act without recording a categorical finding with regard to condition not complied with?
4. Whether Section 143 of the Endowment Act applies to facts of the case to save the suit from the bar of limitation?
13. POINT Nos.1 to 4 :
Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel, representing Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for appellants, would contend that the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and erred in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff and the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and the first appellate Court erred in not considering the Ex.A10 notice and he would further submit that the suit is barred by limitation and section 143 of Endowments Act is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. With these submissions, the learned counsel would contend that the judgment of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in AS.No.736 of 2000 is liable to be set aside.
8 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005
14. Sri Challa Dhanunjay, learned senior counsel, representing Sri V.R.Machavaram, learned counsel for respondent, would contend that on considering the entire material on record, the first appellate court rightly held that as per Section 143 of Endowment Act, limitation Act would not applicable to the facts of the present case and the suit is filed within a period of limitation. With these submissions, the learned counsel for respondent in the second appeal, would contend that the second appeal is liable to be dismissed.
15. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for appellants is the gift deed is not a conditional gift and it is an absolute gift. Ex.A5 and Ex.B6 are the certified copies of gift deed, the same are one and the same. The said certified copies of gift settlement deed is marked as Ex.B6 by the defendant, and on the plaintiff side, the said gift deed is marked as Ex.A5. It is not in dispute that the Swamy Omkar, founder of Ashramam, purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The recitals of Ex.A5 goes to show that the donor clearly mentioned in the gift deed that it was executed on the request of the donee for the purpose of 9 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 establishing Yogasharamam for Naturopathy treatment, if the donee or his followers does not use the property for the public purpose as stated supra or for service to the patients, it shall be revert back to Santhi Ashramam. Therefore, it is clearly stated in Ex.A5 that if the defendant or his followers failed to perform Dharma by doing service to the people, as stated supra, the said property shall be return back to plaintiff's Ashramam. The plaintiff is a Santhi Ashramam, but not an individual, therefore, the recitals of Ex.A5 i.e., Ex.B6 registered gift settlement deed clearly goes to show that the said gift is a conditional gift.
16. Section 31 of Transfer of Property Act defines as follows:
Condition that transfer shall cease to have effect in case specified uncertain event happens or does not happen.--Subject to the provisions of section 12, on a transfer of property an interest therein may be created with the condition superadded that it shall cease to exist in case a specified uncertain event shall happen, or in case a specified uncertain event shall not happen.
(a) A transfers a farm to B for his life, with a proviso that, in case B cuts down a certain wood, the transfer shall cease to have any effect. B cuts down the wood. He loses his life-interest in the farm.
(b) A transfers a farm to B, provided that, if B shall not go to England within three years after the date of the transfer, his interest 10 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 in the farm shall cease. B does not go to England within the term prescribed. His interest in the farm ceases.
17. The recitals in the registered gift settlement deed go to show that there was a superadded condition in the gift deed, if the super added condition in the gift deed fails, the said property shall automatically revert back to the donor or the successor of the owner. Therefore, Ex.A5 gift settlement deed is not absolute. The condition imposed to deliver the property to the donor or his successor is in accordance with law. Ex.A5 goes to show that Santhi Ashramam was registered under Society Registration Act, dated 24.06.1953, Ex.A10 goes to show that a legal notice was issued to the defendant for violating the conditions mentioned in the gift deed. The facts remains no reply notice was given by the plaintiff except by informing in written to the plaintiff's counsel that they will issue a detailed reply notice later. But no such reply notice was given by the defendant. The evidence of PW3 and PW4 goes to show that superadded condition in the gift deed is not followed by the defendant or his successor. The defendant is claiming the gift property as successor of Yogi Raghavendra. In fact, the defendant is not entitled to succeed the property in view of the violation of 11 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 conditions in the gift deed. As per the own admissions of DW2, he did not go to the Ashramam at any point of time and he has no personal knowledge about the activities of Ashramam. As per the evidence of DW7, he had taken Homoeopathy treatment in the defendant Ashramam and also took his son to defendant for Homoeopathy treatment. DW8 also speaks about the giving of Homoeopathy treatment by the defendant's son in Ashramam. The fact remains that the superadded condition in the gift deed is donee has to utilize the premises for the purpose of establishing Yogashramam for naturopathy treatment but not Homoeopathy treatment.
18. Another contention taken by the defendant is that he was adopted by Yogi Raghavendra. Though Ex.B1 adoption deed is relied by the defendant, it shows that it was executed by Raghavendra Yogi himself but not by natural parents. Ex.B1 is not executed by natural parents, though alive. Though the mother of the defendant is alive, during the pendency of the suit, she was not examined as a witness before the trial Court. The natural mother of the defendant is the best person to speak about the theory of the 12 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 alleged adoption. The material on record reveals that both defendant and Raghavendra Yogi belongs to different castes, the only witness to prove Ex.B1 is the scribe or attestor, but the defendant examined the son of the one of the attestor as DW4. DW4 himself admitted in his cross examination that even though he was born in the year 1949, he does not know when the defendant was taken an adoption by Yogi Raghavendra. The recitals of Ex.B1 dated 21.04.1975 goes to show that it was executed on 21.04.1975 by alleged adopted father but not by natural parents and it further shows that the alleged adoption was taken place on 21.08.1953. Accordingly after 22 years of alleged adoption, Ex.B1 was executed on 21.04.1975 by the alleged adopted father but not by natural parents. As stated supra, even though the natural parents are alive, the said adoption deed is not at all obtained from the natural parents. It is the duty of the defendant to prove Ex.B1 adoption, because other side is disputing the said Ex.B1 adoption deed. But the defendant failed to prove the alleged adoption. Ex.A10 is the copy of legal notice dated 04.01.1986. In Ex.A5 it was recited that the land was gifted to the Swamy Yogananda, by imposing a condition, for doing service to the public, but violating the said condition, the 13 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 defendant is making attempts to alienate the property by way of lease of portion of the property for commercial and other purpose not connected with the purpose mentioned in the registered gift deed. Ex.A13 and Ex.A14 goes to show that the paper publication was given on 12.05.1983, by way of public notice, warned the public or any alienates about the awareness of conditions mentioned in the gift. Ex.A12 shows the defendant received Ex.A10 legal notice and he informed vide Ex.A12 by saying that he will give suitable reply notice in detail within 15 days. But the fact remains no such reply was given by the defendant by denying the contents of Ex.A10 legal notice. Ex.A13 and Ex.A14 publications were also not denied by the defendant, therefore, there is no specific denial by the defendant about Ex.A10, Ex.A13 and Ex.A14 contents.
19. A reliance is placed by the learned counsel for plaintiff in the judgment in Thakur Raghunath Ji Maharaj Vs. Ramesh Chandra1. In that decision it was held that:
Further the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants was fiduciary as the suit property was gifted for a specific charitable purpose and the condition 1 (2001)5 SCC 18 14 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 attached to the gift that in case the college building was not constructed within a specified time, the plaintiff would be entitled to the property, was a valid condition; the donee continued to be trustee and the donor could claim back property on the breach of conditions mentioned in the agreement. The High Court rightly relied on the decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banshi Dhar, which fully supports the case of the respondent in regard to his claim for possession of the property. In the said judgment, it was held that the donation given by Dubey was conditional; the Government was a mere custodian of the cash till condition was complied with and if the performance thereof was defeated by the Government, the gift did not take effect. It was further held that the transaction was not a gift simpliciter but was subject to certain conditions; as conditions were not carried, the State could not keep the money and the suit was liable to be decreed.
In the present case also there was a superadded condition in the gift deed, but the defendant violated the said condition and the said condition was not carried out, therefore, the defendant has to revert back the property to the plaintiff's Ashramam.
15 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005
20. The learned counsel for appellant/defendant placed a reliance in the judgment in Tokha Vs. Smt Biru and others 2 . In that decision, it was held that:
In the case in hand, there is no specific condition either for giving maintenance or for revoking of gift deed in case services are stopped to be rendered by the donee. Anyway, the fact remains, as has been stated in the deed of gift that the gift was in lieu of services meaning thereby that the donee had to render services to the donor-plaintiff but in the absence of any specific condition in the event of failure of the donee to render services, the gift could not be revoked. Thus, the deed of gift Ext. D-l if considered as an outcome of general law cannot be said to be revocable one when no specific condition for its revocation has been made in the deed itself in the event of failure of the donee to provide services to the donor or maintain the donor, the gift cannot be revoked.
21. The learned counsel for defendant also placed another reliance in the judgment in Sehdev Singh Verma Vs. J.P.S.Verma and another3. In that decision, it was held that: 2
AIR 2003 Himachal Pradesh 107 3 AIR 2016 Delhi page 1 16 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 In the case in hand there is no specific condition either for giving maintenance or for revoking of the gift deed in case services are stopped to be rendered by the donee.
Anyway, the fact remains, as has been stated in the deed of gift that the gift was in lieu of services meaning thereby that the donee had to render services to the donor-plaintiff but in the absence of any specific condition in the event of failure of the donee to render services, the gift could not be revoked. Thus, the deed of gift Ext. D-1 if considered as an outcome of general law cannot be said to be revocable one when no specific condition for its revocation has been made in the deed Itself in the event of failure of the donee to provide services to the donor or maintain the donor, the gift cannot be revoked." But in this instant case, a superadded condition was added in the gift settlement deed, which was registered, but the defendant did not follow the conditions and violated the terms and conditions in the conditional gift deed. Therefore, the defendant has to revert back the property to the plaintiff's Ashramam.
22. It was pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant that the gift deed is executed by Swamy Omkar in an individual capacity but the suit is filed by Santhi Ashramam represented by its 17 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 Secretary. The recitals in Ex.A5 gift settlement deed shows the intention of the donor as a founder of Santhi Ashramam that if the donee or his followers does not use the property for public purpose or for service to the patients, the property shall be revert back to Santham Asram. There is a clear recital in the gift settlement deed that if any conditions are violated, the property has to revert back to Santhi Ashramam. The word specifically used in the gift settlement deed that "if conditions are violated", the property has to be reverted back to Santhi Ashramam. Once the donee accepted the registered gift settlement deed, he cannot deny the conditions contained in the gift deed. The material on record goes to show that the premises gifted under the gift deed by the donor to the donee for the purpose of use the property for public purpose and for rendering service to the patients in naturopathy. A superadded condition is made by the donor that if donee or his followers fails to follow the superadded clause, the said property has to be reverted back to Santhi Ashram. The material on record reveals that the defendant violated the conditions in the gift deed.
18 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005
23. The learned counsel for the defendant placed another reliance in the judgment in A.E.G.Carapiet Vs. A.Y.Derderia 4 . In that decision it was held that:
Wherever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in cross examination, it must follow that he believed that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. This is not merely a technical rule of evidence. It is a rule of essential justice. It serves to prevent surprise at trial and miscarriage of justice, because it gives notice to the other side of the actual case that is going to be made when the turn of the party on whose behalf the cross examination is being made comes to give and lead evidence by producing witnesses. This much a counsel is bound to do when cross examining that he must put to each of his opponents witnesses in turn, so much of his own case as concerns that particular witness or in which that witness had any share.
24. Another reliance is placed by the learned counsel for defendant in the judgment in Kaivelikkal Ambunhi (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. H.Ganesh Bhandary5. In that decision it was held that: 4
AIR 1961 Calcutta 359 5 (1995)5 SCC 444 19 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 A will may contain several clauses and the latter clause may be inconsistent with the earlier clause. In such a situation, the last intention of the testator is given effect to and it is on this basis that the latter clause is held to prevail over the earlier clause. This is regulated by the well known maxim "cum duo inter se pugnantia reperiuntur in testamento ultimum ratum est" which means that if in a Will there are two inconsistent provisions, the latter shall prevail over the earlier.
25. Another reliance is placed by the learned counsel for defendant in the judgment in Golak Behari Mandal Vs. Sura Dhani Dasi6. In that decision it was held that:
I am of opinion that the decision of the learned Sub- ordinate judge should be upheld in so far as he has decided that plaintiff has succeeded to the interest of her husband Surath in the property bequeathed to him by Bisweswar. The case must, however, be remanded for the consideration of one point only, viz., whether the one anna share in property No.1 of Sch.ka'....' was the self- acquired property of Debendra, father of the defendants Nos.1 to 3 and brother of the defendant No.5, or whether it is property in which the plaintiff has title as heir of Surath.6
1938 SCC online Calcutta 265 20 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 Here in the case on hand, as stated supra, in Ex.A5 registered gift settlement deed, there was a clause of superadded condition covered under Section 31 of Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the gift is not an absolute gift. The donor executed a gift deed by putting some conditions, the donee accepted the gift deed, it includes the conditions also accepted by donee, or his successors in interest. The first appellate Court held in its judgment by giving cogent reasons that the will is to be challenged by the person who was affected by the will and further held that the will cannot be construed that the conditional gift becomes an absolute gift.
Therefore, the facts and circumstances in the cited decisions are not applicable to the present facts of the case.
26. Another reliance is placed by the learned counsel for defendant in the judgment in Mauleshwar Mani and others Vs. Jagdish Prasad and others 7. The facts in the cited decision is bequest is made in favour of wife. Here in the present case, as stated supra, the alleged adoption of the defendant is not at all proved.
7 2002(2) SCC 468 21 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005
27. The learned counsel for defendant placed another reliance in the judgment in Hero Vinoth (Minor) Vs. Seshammal 8 . In that decision it was held that:
It is now well settled that an inference of fact from a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms or a term of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of a principle of law, is a question of law. Therefore, when there is a misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law while interpreting a document, it is open to interference under Section 100 CPC. If a document creating an easement by grant is construed as an 'easement of necessity' thereby materially affecting the decision in the case, certainly it gives rise to a substantial question of law.
Here in the present case the document in question is a conditional gift deed but not by creating an easement of necessity.
28. It was further pleaded by the defendant counsel that the suit is barred by limitation. The learned counsel for appellant would submit 8 AIR 2006 SCC 2234 22 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 that the suit has to be filed within three years from the date of knowledge of the plaintiff for cancellation as per Article 59 of Limitation Act, but the present suit is filed after 10 years from the date of legal notice issued by the plaintiff.
29. The learned counsel for plaintiff placed a reliance in the judgment in I.Valappil Ambunhi (dead) by legal representatives Vs. Kunhambu Karanavan9. in that decision it was held that:
This Court further held that Article 59 of the Limitation Act deals only when relief is claimed on the ground of fraud, coercion, undue influence, mistake, etc., to avoid a voidable transaction. Article 59 is attracted where fraud, coercion, undue influence, mistake, etc., have to be proved. It would not apply to instruments which are presumptively invalid.
Another reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in the judgment in M/s.Potti Swami and Brothers, a firm of merchants carrying on business Vs. Rao Saheb D.Govindarajulu and others10. In that decision it was held that:9
(2020)18 SCC 317 10 AIR 1960 AP 605 23 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 In the other suit O.S.22/49 also, no point of limitation was raised nor was there any issue. In these circumstances, the respondents cannot be permitted to raise any question of limitation. In O.S. 107 of 1950 even otherwise after the demand was first made on 26-12-1943 the suit having been filed on 19-06-1950 it is within six years under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. In the other suit O.S. 22 of 1949 it is not shown how the suit is barred by limitation because on the admitted facts itself the demand was made by telegram dated 23-7-1948 and the suit was filed in 1949 which is well within time.
Here in the case on hand also no point of limitation was raised by any of the parties before the trial Court. It is not the case of the defendant before the trial Court that the suit is barred by law of limitation. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the relief of seeking cancellation is an incidental relief, if super imposed condition in gift deed is not fulfilled the gift fails and the said property shall be revert back to plaintiff's ashramam. In such a case, the Article 66 of Limitation Act would apply to this case.
30. It is relevant to say that in Ex.B3, the Yogi Raghavendra clearly stated that the suit schedule property is to be enjoyed as a 24 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 public charitable and religious trust. Ex.B3 is the objections filed by the Yogi Raghavendra i.e., donee as a declarant before the competent authority i.e., Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling Authority, Visakhapatnam. In Ex.B3 there was a clear mention by Yogi Raghavendra donee that the Visakhapatnam Municipality exempted the land from property tax, because the land is being used for public charitable and religious purpose. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a charitable institution, therefore, section 143 of Endowment Act applicable to the present facts of the case. Therefore, A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowment Act would apply to the case on hand. As stated supra, no point of limitation was raised by any of the parties before the trial Court and so also no issue is framed by the trial Court.
31. For the foregoing reasons, the decree and judgment passed by the first appellate Court i.e., Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court Visakhapatnam is perfectly sustainable under law. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam rightly appreciated the evidence and legal principles in reversing the judgment of the trial 25 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 Court in OS.No.812 of 1996, as such there are no merits in the present appeal.
32. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment in AS.No.736 of 2000, dated 07.06.2005, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The appellant/defendant is directed to deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the respondent/plaintiff within a period of two months from today, failing which, the respondent/plaintiff is at liberty to take necessary steps as per law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Dated: 01.11.2023.
Sj 26 VGKRJ SA 860 of 2005 21 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.860 of 2005 01.11.2023 sj