Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Katta Kanaka Durga Katta Durgamma vs Nuthalapati Triveni on 12 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
APPEAL SUIT No.229 OF 2020
Between:
Katta Kanaka Durga @ Katta Durgamma,
W/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged 48 Years,
R/o.D.No.17-5-52, Goods Sahib Road,
Islampet, Tenali, Permanent R/o.D.No.4-7-78/3,
Koritapadu, Chandramouli Nagar,
Behind Pothuraju Swami Temple,
Guntur District. .... Appellant/Defendant
Versus
1. Nuthalapati Triveni,
W/o.Baji Chowdary @ Baji,
Aged 32 Years, D.No.2-31-38/A,
National Club Road, Nandulape,
Tenali, Guntur District.
2. Shaik Hasina, W/o.Zikriya,
Aged 43 Years, R/o.17-9-6/B,
Muttumsettivaripalem, Tenali,
Guntur District.
3. Bhandari Jayanthi Lal,
S/o. Pukharaj Jain, Aged 55 years,
R/o.6-9-44, Jain Temple Street,
Gangannammapet, Tenali,
Guntur District. .... Respondents/Plaintiffs.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 12.02.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
2. Whether His Lordship wishes to see
The fair copy of the judgment? Yes/No
______________________________
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J
2
AVRB,J
AS No.229/2020
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
+ APPEAL SUIT No.229 OF 2020
% 12.02.2024
# Between:
Katta Kanaka Durga @ Katta Durgamma,
W/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged 48 Years,
R/o.D.No.17-5-52, Goods Sahib Road,
Islampet, Tenali, Permanent R/o.D.No.4-7-78/3,
Koritapadu, Chandramouli Nagar,
Behind Pothuraju Swami Temple,
Guntur District. .... Appellant/Defendant
Versus
1. Nuthalapati Triveni,
W/o.Baji Chowdary @ Baji,
Aged 32 Years, D.No.2-31-38/A,
National Club Road, Nandulape,
Tenali, Guntur District.
2. Shaik Hasina, W/o.Zikriya,
Aged 43 Years, R/o.17-9-6/B,
Muttumsettivaripalem, Tenali,
Guntur District.
3. Bhandari Jayanthi Lal,
S/o. Pukharaj Jain, Aged 55 years,
R/o.6-9-44, Jain Temple Street,
Gangannammapet, Tenali,
Guntur District. .... Respondents/Plaintiffs.
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri P. Veera Reddy,
Rep. Smt.Marella Radha.
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. MANU/GH/0421/2022
2. (2008) 4 SCC 594
3. (2008) 15 SCC 150
4. (2016) 12 SCC 288
This Court made the following:
3
AVRB,J
AS No.229/2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
APPEAL SUIT No.229 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
Challenge in this Appeal Suit is to the judgment and decree, dated 02.07.2020, in Original Suit No.79 of 2016, on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District (for short, 'the learned Additional District Judge') where under the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffs directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property and deliver possession thereof within one (1) month from the date of decree failing which the plaintiffs are at liberty to execute the decree by due process of law.
2. The parties to the Appeal Suit will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, according to the averments of the plaint in O.S. No.79 of 2016 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali is that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of one Palaparthi Satyanarayana, S/o. Peda Rama Swami of Islampet, Tenali. The said Satyanarayana had a younger brother by name Palaparthi Venkateswara Rao. The said Venkateswara Rao, during his life 4 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 time, did not look after his wife and children properly, left them to their fate and used to roam around the roads like an aimless man. Family members of Venkateswara Rao used to suffer for food, clothing and money. On humanitarian grounds, Palaparthi Satyanarayana used to provide food and clothing to the children of his younger brother, though he has knowledge that the family members of his younger brother are disloyal people.
(i) Palaparthi Satyanarayana was blessed with a male child namely Chidambara Koti Venkata Ramana @ Babu (hereinafter referred to as Ramana @ Babu). Even in the childhood days of Ramana @ Babu, Palaparthi Satyanarayana fell sick. On account of the suspicious characters of his younger brother's family members, he executed a Registered Will in connection with his property i.e., the schedule property on 15.07.1980 at Sub-
Registrar's Office, Tenali vide document No.115/1980 and later on 06.02.1981 he passed away. The said registered will is the final testament of Palaparthi Satyanarayana. According to the terms of the will, suit schedule property will devolve upon his two wives with limited rights and, after their death, the total property will go to Ramana @ Babu with limited interest and limited rights. As per another recital of the will after the lifetime of Ramana @ Babu, the entire property will go to his children with absolute rights. 5
AVRB,J AS No.229/2020
(ii) Ramana @ Babu married one Palaparthi Bikshavathi on 11.11.1999 at Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswara Swami Vari Devastanams at Vykunthapuram, Tenali of Guntur District as per the customs of Hindu religion in the presence of elders and well wishers. Subsequently, they were blessed with two male children viz., Palaparthi Satheesh and Palaparthi Rama Krishna on 16.06.2001 and 18.11.2004 respectively. Unfortunately, on 05.02.2007, elder son of Ramana @ Babu viz., Satheesh died. Ramana @ Babu who developed more affection towards his elder son unable to digest the issue of his death, got addicted to alcohol and other vices as such his health was deteriorated, due to which, Ramana @ Babu and his wife Bikshavathi started to go around the hospital for treatment of Ramana @ Babu. At this juncture, 4 years ago, defendant entered into the house portion of the suit property pleading that her husband's health condition was not good and promising that she will look after the son of Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi i.e., Palaparthi Rama Krishna. Bikshavathi and her husband accepted the proposal of the defendant to allow her to stay in a portion in the premises on free of cost. By then, Bikshavathi and her husband were unable to guess the intention of the defendant. Ramana @ Babu did not recover from his ill-health and passed 6 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 away on 23.03.2012. As per the Will of Palaparthi Satyanarayana, the suit property ultimately fell to Palaparthi Rama Krishna, who is the son of Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi. After the death of Ramana @ Babu, Bikshavathi had to go to her maternal home to stay for few days. Defendant promised to her that she will collect the rents and will look after the house but she did not keep up her promise. The defendant started to use the property of her own and started to show her disloyal character. She did not send any amounts to Bikshavathi.
(iii) During the course of time, Bikshavathi felt that property is not useful for the welfare of her son as such she decided to sell the property. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 approached Bikshavathi to purchase the suit schedule property. Bikshavathi approached the Principal District Court, Guntur and obtained necessary permission to sell away the property of Palaparthi Rama Krishna, her son, who was minor by then. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and Bikshavathi visited the suit schedule premises and discussed with the tenants including the defendant and the tenants including the defendant informed to the plaintiffs that they would vacate the property and they will have no objection for purchase of the property by the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs decided to purchase the property. Apart from this, the Principal District Judge, Guntur granted necessary permission to 7 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 Bikshavathi to sell away the property of her minor son. After conclusion of the transaction, the defendant changed her version and did not allow the plaintiffs to enter into the schedule property. The plaintiffs got cleared the tax pending to the Government after purchase of the property. They sent a legal notice to the defendant on 03.03.2016 asking her to vacate the property. Having received the said notice, she kept quiet. Hence, the Suit for recovery of possession from the defendant.
4. The defendant got filed a written statement denying the case of the plaintiffs and her contention, in brief, according to the contents of her written statement is that Palaparthi Satyanarayana and his two wives Arogyamma and Renuka Devi had love and affection towards the defendant. Defendant used to treat Arogyamma as her mother. They performed the marriage of Ramana @ Babu with one Bikshavathi. Since the date of marriage, Bikshavathi was not interested towards her husband and she used to quarrel with him. Ramana @ Babu was affected with Aids disease. Knowing the said fact, Bikshavathi left the company of Ramana @ Babu and went to Vijayawada. Subsequently, she never visited her husband and her relatives. On 11.04.2003, the defendant, relatives and elders of both parties decided to settle the 8 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 issue. Taking customary divorce in the Yerukala Community is prevailing. Hence, Ramana @ Babu took customary divorce by consuming 1/4th liter of liquor given by Bikshavathi. Similarly, the relatives of Bikshavathi consumed the same quantity of liquor given by Ramana @ Babu. Thus, there was a customary divorce between Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi on 11.04.2003. The defendant spent money and constructed RCC building with two portions out of the said property. Ramana @ Babu died intestate on 23.03.2012 leaving behind him the defendant, her mother Bhagyamma and her sisters Muchu Koti Prabha, Jagannadham Lakshmi, Jagannadham Parvathi and her brother Palaparthi China Babu as his legal heirs. She is paying monthly tax in the name of his senior paternal uncle - Palaparthi Satyanarayana. Bikshavathi filed HMGOP No.8 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Guntur as if Katta Rama Krishna @ Palaparthi Rama Krishna is the minor son of late Ramana @ Babu and that the suit property was bequeathed to him under the alleged will dated 15.07.1980 executed by Palaparthi Satyanarayana. The relatives of Ramana @ Babu are not shown as parties to the aforesaid HMGOP No.8 of 2014. Palaparthi Satyanarayana never executed the will dated 15.07.1980. Therefore, the plaintiffs will not get any right and title over the suit 9 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 property. Plaintiffs conspired together and brought into existence the sale deed dated 15.07.2004. Hence, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, originally, the learned Additional District Judge settled the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are the absolute owners having title over the plaint schedule property, if so, entitled for possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
6. It is a fact that the learned Additional District Judge, at the time of delivery of judgment, re-casted the following issues:
1. Whether the will dated 15.07.1980 executed by Palaparthi Satyanarayana is true, valid and binding on the parties to the suit?
2. Whether there was customary divorce between Chidhambara Koti Venkata Ramana and Bikshavathi on 11.04.2003 as pleaded by the defendant? 10
AVRB,J AS No.229/2020
3. Whether the suit is maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title?
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
5. Whether Katta Rama Krishna @ Palaparthi Rama Krishna was born to Chidhambara Koti Venkata Ramana and Palaparthi Bikshavathi?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession of the suit property as prayed for?
7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-12 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, she examined herself as DW.1 and further examined DW.2 in support of her case. Exs.B-1 to B-29 were marked on behalf of the defendant.
8. The learned Additional District Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, made findings that the defendant failed to prove that there was customary divorce between Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi as pleaded and further failed to prove that Katta Rama Krishna @ Palaparthi Rama Krishna was not born to Chidambara Koti Venkata Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi and that even the 11 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 plaintiffs did not prove the will dated 15.07.1980 alleged to be executed Palaparthi Satyanarayana and that the Suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the Suit is maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title and further made a finding that irrespective of proving of the will dated 15.07.1980, PW.2 and her son Palaparthi Rama Krishna after the death of Palaparthi Satyanarayana had every right to inherit the plaint schedule property as such the plaintiffs being the purchasers of the property from them had right over the plaint schedule property and that the defendant is not the Class-I legal heir to Palaparthi Satyanarayana and with the aforesaid findings decreed the Suit of the plaintiffs.
9. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree in O.S. No.79 of 2016, dated 02.07.2020, the un-successful defendant therein filed the present Appeal.
10. Now, in deciding the present Appeal, the points that arise for determination are as follows:
1) Whether the defendant before the learned Additional District Judge proved her contention that there was customary divorce between Ramana @ Babu and 12 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 Bikshavathi on 11.04.2003 and that Palaparthi Rama Krishna was not born to Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi during their wedlock?
2) Whether the plaintiff before the learned Additional District Judge proved the execution of the will dated 15.07.1980 by Palaparthi Satyanarayana?
3) Whether suit of the plaintiffs seeking recovery of possession basing on Ex.A-8 sale deed dated 15.07.2014 is maintainable without seeking declaration of title and whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of any necessary parties?
4) Whether the plaintiffs before the learned Additional District Judge proved their entitlement to recover possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant?
5) Whether the judgment, dated 02.07.2020 in O.S. No.79 of 2016 is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?
13
AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 POINT Nos.1 to 5:
11. All these points can conveniently be discussed and decided together. PW.1 before the trial Court was no other than the third plaintiff who put forth the facts in his chief-examination affidavit in tune with the pleadings. Through his examination, Exs.A-1 to A-12 were marked. It is pertinent to describe here Exs.A-1 to A-12.
Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of registered will dated 15.07.1980 executed by Palaparthi Satyanarayana. Ex.A-2 is the death certificate, dated 06.02.1981, of Palaparthi Satyanarayana. Ex.A-3 is the marriage receipt issued by the Executive Officer of Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Tenali. Ex.A-4 is the birth certificate, dated 18.11.2004, of Palaparthi Rama Krishna issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths, Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada. Ex.A-5 is the death certificate, dated 23.03.2012, of Palaparthi Chidambara Koti Venkata Ramana issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Municipality, Tenali. Ex.A-6 is the certified copy of order in HMGOP No.8 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Guntur. Ex.A-7 is the receipt, dated 19.06.2014, for clearance of pending tax balance issued by Tenali Municipality. Ex.A-8 is the registration extract of registered sale deed, dated 14 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 15.07.2014, in the name of plaintiff, executed by Palaparthi Bikshavathi as guardian of her son. Ex.A-9 is the House tax receipts (3 in number) in the name of plaintiffs. Ex.A-10 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 03.03.2016, issued to the defendant. Ex.A-11 is the postal acknowledgment of the defendant. Ex.A-12 is the Aadhaar Card in the name of defendant.
12. Further, the plaintiffs got filed the chief-examination affidavit of their vendor i.e., Palaparthi Bikshavathi, who in her chief-examination affidavit deposed in respect of the case of the plaintiffs in tune with the plaint averments. Further, the plaintiffs got examined the third party namely Kubha Veeramma as PW.3 and her chief-examination is in support of the case of the plaintiffs.
13. The defendant got filed her chief-examination affidavit adverting to the contents of written statement and through her chief-examination, she sought to mark as many as 29 documents as such Exs.B-1 to B-29 were marked during the course of her chief-examination. It is pertinent to refer here those documents that were marked through DW.1. Ex.B-1 is the death certificate of Palaparthi Satyanarayana issued by the Tenali Municipality dated 06.02.1981. Ex.B-2 is the death certificate of Palaparthi 15 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 Chidhambara Koti Venkata Ramana obtained from Tenali Municipality dated 23.03.2012. Ex.B-3 is the electricity charges payment receipt paid by the defendant dated 30.10.2012. Ex.B-4 is the electricity charges payment receipt paid by the defendant dated 22.03.2013. Ex.B-5 is the electricity charges payment receipt paid by the defendant dated 19.09.2013. Ex.B-6 is the electricity charges payment receipt paid by the defendant dated 16.12.2013. Ex.B-7 is the electricity charges payment receipt paid by the defendant dated 24.01.2014. Ex.B-8 is the electricity charges payment receipt paid by defendant dated 24.02.2014. Ex.B-9 is the electricity charges payment receipt paid by the defendant dated 24.03.2014. Ex.B-10 is the electricity charges payment receipt paid by the defendant dated 26.04.2014. Ex.B-11 is the Electricity charges payment receipt paid by the defendant dated 11.07.2014. Ex.B-12 is the electricity charges payment receipt paid by the defendant dated 09.08.2014. Ex.B-13 is the voter identity card in the name of defendant. Ex.B-14 is the Transfer Certificate in the name of defendant issued by Head Master, AP High School, Muthamsettyvaripalem of Tenali. Ex.B-15 is the seven colour photos with compact disc showing with suit property. Ex.B-16 is the Vaartha daily news paper district edition dated 16.04.2015. Ex.B-17 is the Visalandhra daily news paper 16 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 district edition dated 16.04.2015. Ex.B-18 is the copy of Caveat petition filed by Palaparthi Bikshavathi against the defendant on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali. Ex.B-19 is the reply notice dated 09.08.2014 issued on behalf of the defendant to the caveat petition. Ex.B-20 is the legal notice dated 23.08.2014 issued on behalf of Palaparthi Bikshavathi to the advocate for the defendant. Ex.B-21 is the notice dated 30.08.2014 sent by Assistant Engineer (Operation), Tenali to the defendant. Ex.B-22 is the reply notice dated 03.09.2014 issued on behalf of the defendant to Assistant Engineer (Operation), Tenali. Ex.B-23 is the office copy of report sent by the defendant to the Chairman, Human Rights, Hyderabad. Ex.B-24 is the office copy of report dated 23.05.2015 given by the defendant to I Town Police, Tenali. Ex.B-25 is the Notice dated 08.06.2015 sent to the defendant by Bikshavathi and plaintiffs. Ex.B-26 is the served copy of complaint No.5358/2014 filed by the plaintiffs and Bikshavathi against the defendant on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali. Ex.B-27 is the notice dated 28.03.2016 issued on behalf of plaintiffs and Bikshavathi to the defendant. Ex.B-28 is the office copy of reply notice dated 02.09.2016 issued on behalf of the defendant to the 17 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 notice dated 28.03.2016. Ex.B-29 is the postal acknowledgment of Tenali Municipality dated 01.01.2014.
14. Further, the defendant got filed the chief-examination affidavit of DW.2, who is a third party and his chief-examination affidavit is in support of the case of the defendant.
15. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, would contend that the basis for claim of the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant is their sale deed under Ex.A-8. Plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the property from Palaparthi Bikshavathi, guardian of her minor son Rama Krishna under Ex.A-8. They pleaded that Rama Krishna got the property by virtue of the effect of Ex.A-1 copy of the will. Plaintiffs did not prove the execution of Ex.A-1 will by Palaparthi Satyanarayana in the manner as claimed. The contention of the defendant is that Palaparthi Satyanarayana died intestate. The defendant is no other than the daughter of Palaparthi Venkateswara Rao, who is the younger brother of Palaparthi Satyanarayana. The contention of the appellant/defendant is that as Palaparthi Satyanarayana died intestate, she and her family members were alone the legal 18 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 heirs. The contention of the defendant is also that Palaparthi Satyanarayana and his two wives used to treat the defendant as their own daughter with love and affection. The contention of the defendant is also that Ramana @ Babu, the son of Palaparthi Satyanarayana married PW.2 - Bikshavathi but their marriage was dissolved on 11.04.2003 out of a customary divorce. So, according to them, Palaparthi Rama Krishna was not born to Ramana @ Babu and PW.2 during their wedlock. There used to be a practice in Erukula community for getting customary divorce. DW.1 and DW.2 testified about the customary divorce on a later date. Their evidence was not challenged during the course of cross-examination with regard to the customary divorce by suggesting any contra theory. Learned Senior Counsel would strenuously contend that if the evidence of a witness on a particular aspect is not disputed, during the course of cross- examination by doing any contra cross-examination, such version is deemed to have been admitted. In support of his contention, learned counsel would rely upon Para Nos.31 to 34 of the decision of the High Court of Gauhati in Jalaluddin Ali v. Manju Begum and others1. He would submit that in Jalaluddin Ali (supra), the High Court of Gauhati dealt with the aspect of non-cross- 1 MANU/GH/0421/2022 19 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 examination on a particular aspect. So, the contention of learned Senior Counsel is that as the testimony of DW.1 and DW.2 was not challenged during the cross-examination with reference to the customary divorce spoken by them, it is deemed that plaintiffs admitted the factum of customary divorce. The learned Additional District Judge, ignoring these aspects, held that the defendant failed to probabilize her contention with regard to the customary divorce between Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi. Those findings are not at all tenable at any rate. Apart from this, Ex.A-1 will was not proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
16. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that though PW.2 filed HMGOP No.8 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Guntur but she did not implead the defendant and her other relatives and obtained an order in HMGOP No.8 of 2004 on behalf of the minor son by collusion. Therefore on the strength of the order, as above, PW.2 had no power to sell the property, especially when the plaintiffs did not prove Ex.A-1 will. PW.2 was not a party to the present Suit and her non-joinder is bad in law. Learned counsel would contend that in Ex.B-14 - transfer certificate the defendant was shown as 20 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 daughter of Palaparthi Satyanarayana which probabilized her contention that wives of Palaparthi Satyanarayana used to treat her as their own daughter and this aspect was not considered by the learned trial Court. The plaintiffs did not implead the tenants who used to reside in the suit schedule property as parties and delivery of possession as mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiffs is not at all correct. The plaintiffs, for obvious reasons, did not seek to declare their title though they had knowledge that they have an imperfect title and the suit for mere recovery of possession is not at all maintainable without seeking declaration of title. In support of such contention, he would rely upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and others2. The evidence of DW.1 had corroboration from the evidence of DW.2 who testified that there were no issues between PW.2 and Ramana @ Babu. PW.2 did not file any proof to show her residence in Tenali after the year 2003, which shows that she was residing elsewhere after obtaining customary divorce between the elders. The burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove their title which they failed miserably to prove. There is no dispute about the fact that the defendant has been in settled possession of the plaint schedule property. In the absence 2 (2008) 4 SCC 594 21 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 of establishing the contentions set forth by the plaintiffs the defendant had every right to remain in the plaint schedule property being the legal heir of Palaparthi Satyanarayana. The defendant consistently proved the fact that there was customary divorce between Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi as such Palaparthi Rama Krishna was not born to PW.2 and Bikshavathi. The learned Additional District Judge did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. With the above submissions, learned counsel would contend that the judgment, dated 02.07.2020, in O.S. No.79 of 2016 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali is liable to be set-aside.
17. Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, would submit that it is for the defendant before the trial Court to prove the factum of customary divorce between Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi, which she failed to probabilize. In Ex.B-19 - reply of the defendant, there was no whisper about the date of customary divorce and names of the elders or relatives in whose presence it was obtained. On the other hand, Ex.B-19, the so called reply of the defendant was marked during her chief-examination and the contents thereof were not in dispute. It was issued in response to a Caveat filed by PW.2. The 22 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 allegations were that the marriage between Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi was performed in the year 1999 and they resided together for a period of 7 years and thereafter there arose disputes and that there was a customary divorce. It means that PW.2 and her husband resided together even according to the defendant till the year 2006. The defendant set-up the date of customary divorce for the first time in her written statement. So, she pleaded the customary divorce was as that of the year 2003. So, Ex.B-19 reply falsifies the evidence of DW.1. So, even according to the defendant, both PW.2 and her husband had access with each other till the year 2006. Here, Palaparthi Rama Krishna i.e., son of Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi was born on 18.11.2004. So, the defendant deliberately set up the date of alleged customary divorce as that of the year 2003 which was false. So, till the year 2006, PW.2 and her husband had access to each other. According to PW.2, there was no customary divorce between her and her husband and her husband died during the subsistence of the marriage. So, when PW.2 and her husband had access to each other, defendant cannot be permitted to contend that Palaparthi Rama Krishna was not born to Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi. Apart from this, in Ex.A-4 the birth certificate of Palaparthi Ramakrishna, his father's name was clearly shown as Palaparthi Chidambara Koti Venkata 23 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 Ramana. The learned Additional District Judge with sound reasons made adverse findings against the defendant with regard to the paternity of Palaparthi Rama Krishna and further negatived the theory of customary divorce.
18. Learned counsel would further submit that it is a fact that the plaintiffs did not produce the original will said to be executed by Palaparthi Satyanarayana in favour his two wives with vested remainder to Ramana @ Babu and after his death to his legal heirs. Plaintiffs could produce only Ex.A-1 copy of the will. It is a fact that they did not examine the attestors. However, there is no dispute that Ramana @ Babu was the only son to Palaparthy Satyanarayana and he died intestate and there is no dispute that PW.2 was no other than one of the legal heir and further Palaparthi Rama Krishna - the minor son was the legal heir. So, PW.2 and her son were only the Class-I legal heirs. The defendant was not at all a Class-I legal heir. The defendant did not prove that she was the daughter of Palaparthi Satyanarayana. Mere showing her name as daughter of Palaparthi Satyanarayana in the transfer certificate would not confer any rights on her. According to her, the two wives of Palaparthi Satyanarayana used to treat her with love and affection. Plaintiffs are not disputing the possession of the 24 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 plaint schedule property with the defendant for a considerable period of time. The plaintiffs filed the Suit for recovery of possession basing on the title. There was no denial of the title of the plaintiffs. The Suit for recovery of possession without seeking declaration of title is absolutely maintainable. In support of the contentions, she would rely upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao v. Galla Jani Kamma @ Nacharamma3 and Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (dead) through legal representatives v. Muddasani Sarojana4. The learned Additional District Judge rightly dealt with the fact that PW.2 and her son were the Class-I legal heirs as such as the plaintiffs purchased the plaint schedule property from the minor, being represented by PW.2 they derived rights as such decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The learned Additional District Judge rightly appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs as such the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge needs no interference.
19. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, during the course of reply, would contend that the contents in Ex.B-19 - reply issued on behalf of the defendant that PW.2 and her 3 (2008) 15 SCC 150 4 (2016) 12 SCC 288 25 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 husband resided for a period of 7 years from the year 1999 appears to be incorrect which was said to be issued by her counsel. He would submit that when the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 was not at all challenged as regards the customary divorce and when the defendant made an emphatic pleading in the written statement about the customary divorce, non-challenging of the testimony of DW.1 and DW.2 by the plaintiffs during the course of their cross-examination means that virtually they admitted about the customary divorce. There was no proper appreciation of the evidence by the learned Additional District Judge in this regard. The fact that Ex.A-8 - registered sale deed, dated 15.07.2014, set up by the plaintiffs speaks of the delivery of possession goes to prove that the contents of it are false as such basing on it, plaintiffs cannot recover possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant. With the above said reply, learned Senior Counsel seeks to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge.
20. Before going to deal with the disputed facts, it is pertinent to refer here the admitted facts. The admitted facts are that originally the suit schedule property was the self acquired property of Palaparthi Satyanarayana, who had two wives namely 26 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 Aarogyamma - first wife and Renuka Devi - second wife and Palaparthi Satyanarayana and Renuka Devi were blessed with one male child viz., Chidambara Koti Venkata Ramana @ Babu on 21.08.1978. Palaparthi Satyanarayana admittedly had one brother viz., Palaparthi Venkateswara Rao and out of his wedlock with Bhagyamma, they were blessed with 6 issues out of which the present defendant is their daughter. So, Palaparthi Satyanarayana is the paternal uncle of the present defendant. There is no dispute about the death of Palaparthi Satyanarayana on 06.02.1981, which is quietly evident from Ex.A-2 and Ex.B-1 death certificates. Further admitted fact was that Ramana @ Babu, S/o. Palaparthi Satyanarayana married one Bikshavathi (PW.2) and he died on 23.03.2012, which is evident from his death certificate marked under Ex.A-5. These are all the admitted facts which are not in dispute.
21. The disputed facts are about the contention raised by the defendant that there was a customary divorce between Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi (PW.2) on 11.04.2003 and that Katta Rama Krishna @ Palaparthi Rama Krishna was not born to Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi (PW.2). The disputed fact is also that Palaparthi Satyanarayana during his life time executed the 27 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 original of Ex.A-1 - will conveying the suit schedule property in favour of his two wives with limited interest and thereafter, it will devolve upon his son Ramana @ Babu with limited interest and after his lifetime, property has to be devolve upon his issues. These are all the factual aspects which are in dispute.
22. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with whether the defendant before the trial Court was able to probabilize her contention about the customary divorce between Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi on 11.04.2003 and further that Katta Rama Krishna @ Palaparthi Rama Krishna was not born to Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi. Admittedly, issue Nos.2 and 5 before the trial Court were necessitated on account of the written statement of the defendant which she is bound to prove.
23. Turning to the cross-examination of PW.1, who is the third plaintiff, his entire cross-examination was confined relating to the so called execution of Ex.A-1 which was in serious dispute and further the so called irregularities on the part of Bikshavathi in obtaining permission from the Principal District Judge, Guntur to sell away the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs etc. In other words, PW.1 was not at all cross-examined with reference to the so called customary divorce dated 11.04.2003 as 28 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 pleaded by the defendant and that Katta Rama Krishna @ Palaparthi Rama Krishna was not born to Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi. Similar is the situation in respect of the evidence of PW.3, who was the elder sister of PW.2. However, during the course of cross-examination of PW.2, who is no other than Palaparthi Bikshavathi, the defendant agitated about the so called customary divorce between her and her husband. During the course of cross-examination of PW.2, she denied that she came to know that her husband Ramana @ Babu Rao was attacked with Aids disease. She denied that after coming to know about the said fact, she deserted her husband. She denied that elders intervened, mediated and requested her to lead marital life with her husband and she refused to lead marital life as he was attacked with Aids and accordingly she took customary divorce on 11.04.2003 and performed all activities as per the caste customs on that day at Vijayawada and since then there was no marital relation between her and her husband, she started living separately. She admitted that her husband died due to Aids. She denied that she did not attend the obsequies of her husband as she took customary divorce and that Palaparthi Rama Krishna was not born to Chidambara Koti Venkata Ramana @ Babu.
29
AVRB,J AS No.229/2020
24. As seen from the evidence of DW.1, who is the defendant, she deposed about her contention with regard to the so called customary divorce between Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi on 11.04.2003.
25. DW.2 was the so called elder who claimed that he was present at the time of customary divorce and there was a customary divorce between PW.2 and her husband on 11.04.2003 and that no children were born to Bikshavathi through Ramana @ Babu.
26. It is to be noted that the contention of the appellant is that when the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 was not challenged by giving any contra suggestions with reference to the customary divorce spoken by them during their chief-examination, it is deemed that plaintiffs admitted the same as such the trial Court was not justified in giving negative findings. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would rely upon the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Jalaluddin Ali (1st supra). It is to be noted that during the course of cross-examination, DW.1 deposed there is no documentary evidence to show divorce between Bikshavathi and Ramana @ Babu. Witness adds that it was effected between the caste elders. There is no document to 30 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 show before the caste elders. It is true that Ramana @ Babu was alive till the year 2012. She denied that Ramana @ Babu never raised any dispute during his life time that children born to Bikshavathi are not his children and that he did not file any suit or complaint against Bikshavathi denying the children are not his children. During the course of cross-examination of DW.2, he denied that out of wedlock of Bikshavathi and Ramana @ Babu, they were blessed with two children and that he is deposing false after taking money from the defendant.
27. It is to be noted that according to the case of the plaintiffs, Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi were blessed with two children and the elder son died due to ill-health and the surviving son is Katta Rama Krishna @ Palaparthi Rama Krishna. It is to be noted that though there was no suggestion before DW.1 and DW.2 denying the factum of customary divorce but in this regard cross- examination was done to test the veracity of DW.1 and DW.2. The cross-examination of DW.1 was such that she was probed as to whether there was any document to prove the customary divorce before the caste elders that was alleged to be happened between Bikshavathi and Ramana @ Babu. Further, the defence of the plaintiffs before DW.1 was that Ramana @ Babu never disputed 31 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 the paternity of his children. Cross-examination of DW.2 was with contention that Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi were blessed with two children. So, merely because there were no suggestions it cannot be held that plaintiffs accepted the version of DW.1 and DW.2. If that analogy is to be applied, there was no cross- examination of PW.1 and PW.3 with reference to the customary divorce between PW.2 and her husband. It is a fact that PW.2 denied the so called customary divorce between her and her husband as suggested to her. The line of cross-examination of DW.1 and DW.2 on behalf of the plaintiffs can only mean that ultimately plaintiffs denied the so called theory of customary divorce between PW.2 and her husband and the paternity issue of Palaparthi Rama Krishna.
28. Turning to the decision of Guwahati High Court in Jalaluddin Ali (1st supra), cited by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, the Gujarat High Court with reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the cross- examination held that the fact of non-cross-examination is that the statement of the witness has not been disputed.
29. Coming to the present case on hand, plaintiffs examined PW.2, who was no other than Palaparthi Bikshavathi, who denied 32 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 the case of the defendant to any extent. Hence, merely because there was no suggestion given to DW.1 and DW.2, the case of the defendant cannot be strengthened and this Court cannot lost site of the fact that during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.3 also defendant did not come up with any version about the so called customary divorce between PW.2 and her husband and disputing the paternity issue of the son of PW.2 i.e., Palaparthi Rama Krishna.
30. To this extent simply because there was no suggestion given to DW.1 and DW.2 about the customary divorce, the case of the defendant cannot be strengthened. It is to be noted that the plaintiffs got marked birth certificate of Palaparthi Rama Krishna under Ex.A-4 which reveals that Palaparthi Rama Krishna was born on 18.11.2004. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, the contents therein are not in dispute. Of course, there was an agitation by the defendant before PW.2 in this regard and PW.2 denied the case of the defendant. So, the date of birth certificate in the name of Palaparthi Rama Krishna means that he was born on 18.11.2004 and his father's name was mentioned as Ramana @ Babu.
33
AVRB,J AS No.229/2020
31. It is to be noted that during the chief-examination of DW.1, Ex.B-19 was marked. According to the chief-examination affidavit of DW.1 on 02.08.2014 Bikshavathi filed a Caveat OP for which she (DW.1) sent a detailed reply dated 09.08.2014 through her counsel mentioning all the facts. So, the contents of the reply under Ex.B-19 were never in dispute. It is not that those contents were out of any mistake or otherwise. So, as seen from Ex.B-19 to the Caveat filed by Bikshavathi - PW.2, the defendant ventured to issue Ex.B-19 reply. As evident from Ex.B-19, the contention of the defendant is that Ramana @ Babu married Bikshavathi in the year 1999 and both lived together for some time. 7 years thereafter some disputes arose between Bikshavathi and her husband and in the presence of defendant, relatives and caste elders they dissolved the marriage and took customary divorce, which is prevailing in their community. It is to be noted that when Ex.B-19 did not reveal the date of customary divorce, it was only through the written statement of the defendant the date of customary divorce as 11.04.2003 was projected. So, in the earliest point of time i.e., 09.08.2014 defendant did not plead the factum of date of customary divorce. If Ex.B-19 contents are considered, it means that Ramana @ Babu and PW.2 resided together from the year 1999 as husband and wife till the year 2006. So after 2006 34 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 according to Ex.B-19, some disputes arose, which resulted into customary divorce. Here, the defendant pleaded the customary divorce as 11.04.2003. Obviously, it was with an intention to dispute the paternity issue of Palaparthi Rama Krishna because he was born on 18.11.2004 according to Ex.A-4. Defendant is not disputing his date of birth. So, it appears that with an intention to dispute his paternity only the defendant ventured to put forth the date of the alleged customary divorce as 11.04.2003, contrary to the contents of Ex.B-19 - reply. It is never the case of the defendant throughout the trial that by mistake or otherwise there was a mention in Ex.B-19 that Ramana @ Babu and Bikshavathi resided together till the year 2006. So, obviously it is very clear that Ex.B-19 falsifies the contents of the written statement of the defendant with reference to the so called date of customary divorce.
32. It is to be noted that as evident from the evidence of DW.2, he was unable to say his door number and the door umber of the defendant and it is very astonishing to note that he remembered the date of the so called customary divorce. By virtue of Ex.B-19 even it falsifies the evidence of DW.2 also with reference to the date of customary divorce. The evidence of PW.2 is such that there 35 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 was no customary divorce at all between her and her husband. She admitted that her husband suffered with Aids till he died. The fact that her husband was suffering with Aids would not lead to any conclusion that on account of that she got customary divorce. The defendant by standing on her own legs miserably failed to prove the customary divorce as pleaded by her.
33. As the defendant miserably failed to prove the customary divorce and as she wanted to dispute the paternity issue of the son of PW.2 only on the ground that PW.2 and her husband got customary divorce on 11.04.2003, at this juncture, it is pertinent to extract here Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which runs as follows:
"112. Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy - The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten."
34. So, a perusal of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act reveals that if any person was born during the continuance of a 36 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within 280 days after its dissolution, the mother remaining un-married, it shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time. Here, the date of birth of Palaparthi Rama Krishna was on 18.11.2004. Defendant miserably failed to prove the customary divorce dated 11.04.2003. On the other hand, Ex.B-19 reply by the defendant falsifies her evidence and evidence of DW.2 with regard to customary divorce. Ex.B-19 means that both Ramana @ Babu and her wife Bikshavathi, even according to the defendant, resided together till the year 2006. So, Ramana @ Babu and her wife i.e., PW.2 had every access with each other prior to the birth of their son by name Palaparthi Rama Krishna. So, considering Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, the paternity issue of Palaparthi Rama Krishna is nothing but a conclusive one. Hence, the contention of defendant that Palaparthi Rama Krishna was not born to PW.2 and her husband is not at all tenable. The defendant failed to prove those aspects in the considered view of this Court.
35. Now, another aspect to be considered here is whether the plaintiffs were able to prove the execution of original of Ex.A-1 - 37
AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 Will by Palaparthi Satyanarayana in favour of his two wives. It is to be noted that in view of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and as the Will is compulsorily attestable document, it is to be proved by examining at least one attesting witness. Neither the plaintiffs produced the original of Ex.A-1 Will nor tendered any explanation for its non- production. Even they did not examine any attestor thereof. The original of Ex.A-1 set-up by the plaintiffs was in serious dispute. So, it is a case where the plaintiffs did not prove the execution of original of Ex.A-1 by Palaparthi Satyanarayana in the manner as pleaded.
36. Though the plaintiffs failed to prove execution of Ex.A-1 but they are claiming recovery of possession basing on the sale deed executed by PW.2 representing her son conveying the plaint schedule property in their favour. The plaintiffs got marked the registration extract of the sale deed under Ex.A-8 which literally reveals that the plaint schedule property was purchased by the plaintiffs from PW.2. It is to be noted that simply because the plaintiffs failed to prove Ex.A-1, the Suit cannot be dismissed. Even according to the defendant, the plaint schedule property was the self acquired property of Palaparthi Satyanarayana. As evident 38 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 from the evidence of PW.2 during cross-examination Ramana @ Babu is the son of Renuka Devi, the second wife of Palaparthi Satyanarayana. Arogyamma, first wife of Palaparthi Satyanarayana, died of heart attack. Renuka Devi died in the train accident in the year 1992. There is no dispute that Ramana @ Babu was the only legal heir to Palaparthi Satyanarayana, who was born through his second wife Renuka Devi. There is no dispute about the marriage between Ramana @ Babu and PW.2. As this Court already pointed out, the defendant cannot dispute the paternity issue of Palaparthi Rama Krishna. So, after the death of Palaparthi Satyanarayana and his two wives, ultimately the plaint schedule property devolved upon PW.2 and Ramana @ Babu. There was no dispute about the death of Ramana @ Babu. Though Ramana @ Babu and PW.2 were blessed with two issues, another son by name Satheesh predeceased Palaparthi Rama Krishna. There is no dispute further that PW.2 being the wife of Ramana @ Babu and her son Palaparthi Rama Krishna in view of the earlier findings were no other than the Class-I legal heirs, as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. There is also no dispute that parties are governed by the Hindu Succession Act. So, they are the Class-I legal heirs. The defendant was not at all a Class-I legal heir to Palaparthi Satyanarayana, being the daughter of his younger 39 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 brother Palaparthi Venkateswara Rao. The contention of the defendant is that the two wives of Palaparthi Satyanarayana used to treat her with lot of love and affection. Even assuming for a moment that even according to the pleadings of the plaintiffs, Palaparthi Satyanarayana used to take care of the welfare of the siblings of Palaparthi Venkateswara Rao as he neglected them, it is not going to confer any right on the defendant with regard to the plaint schedule property. The defendant did not plead any testamentary succession. According to her, Palaparthi Satyanarayana died intestate and she and her family members were the immediate legal heirs. As the defendant miserably failed to prove the customary divorce between Ramana @ Babu, who was the Class-I legal heir of Palaparthi Satyanarayana and Palaparthi Bikshavathi and as she failed to disprove the paternity issue of Palaparthi Rama Krishna, absolutely, even according to the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, she had no right to claim plaint schedule property. PW.2 and her son being the Class-I legal heirs excludes the defendant from the purview of Succession.
37. Coming to the contention of the defendant that the Suit for recovery of possession is not maintainable without seeking for any declaration of title, it is not a case where the title of the plaintiffs 40 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 was denied. It is a case where the plaintiffs claimed that they purchased the plaint schedule property from the legal heirs of Palaparthy Satyanarayana. One cannot deny the fact that PW.2 and her son were the Class-I legal heirs to Ramana @ Babu, who was the son of Palaparthi Satyanarayana.
38. Turning to the decision cited by learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs in Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao (3rd supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with certain factual aspects to the effect that in a particular case where plaintiff purchased the land under the registered sale deed, dated 10.04.1957. The defendant in that particular case did not claim any title with reference to any document but claimed to have perfected title by adverse possession. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere claim by the defendant that he perfected his title by adverse possession does not meant that a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and that he should file a suit for declaration of title. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that unless the defendant raised a serious cloud over the title, there is no need to file a suit for declaration and a suit for possession is maintainable.
39. In Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (4th supra) also, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when there was no serious cloud 41 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 over the plaintiff's title, suit for recovery of possession is maintainable without seeking any declaration of title.
40. Turning to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar (2nd supra), it is only where the title claimed by the plaintiff is not in a cloud, the remedy is for declaration of title and for possession. When the title is not disputed remedy is suit for possession.
41. Coming to the present case on hand, the defendant claimed to have come into possession of the schedule property as Class-I legal heir as Palaparthi Satyanarayana was her paternal uncle and after the death of Ramana @ Babu, she has rights over the property by way of succession and there was customary divorce between Ramana @ Babu as such neither PW.2 nor her son had nothing to do with succession issue. She failed to probabilize such contention, as this Court already pointed out. Considering the same, absolutely, the title of the plaintiffs is not in serious dispute as such the plaintiffs can as well maintain the Suit for recovery of possession without seeking any declaration of title.
42. It is a fact that in Ex.B-14, the transfer certificate issued by the school authorities, Palaparthi Satyanarayana was shown as 42 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 father of the defendant. It is to be noted that the defendant was not the daughter of Palaparthi Satyanarayana, as admitted by her. She cannot support her contention basing on the certificate under Ex.B-14, the so called transfer certificate issued by the school authorities to a student when he or she was leaving the school. As seen from Ex.A-8, the contents thereof are in a routine manner as if the vendors delivered possession of the property to the vendee but practically there is no dispute that possession of the property has been with the defendant. It is to be noted that the plaintiffs being purchasers of the plaint schedule property from its lawful owners can as well maintain a Suit for recovery of possession though Ex.A-8 literally runs the delivery of possession as on the date of sale deed in a routine manner. The fact that Ex.A-8 literally runs that the vendor delivered possession with vendee would not defeat the right of the plaintiffs to recover possession basing on the sale deed obtained by them from its lawful owner. Apart from this, the non-joinder of PW.2 in the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not at all fatal to the case of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs being the purchasers of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A-8 need not show the vendor of the document as a party to the Suit. PW.2 obtained an order in HMGOP No.8 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Guntur to sell the property of her son 43 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 being a minor. As this Court already pointed out, PW.2 and her son were the Class-I legal heirs of her husband and her husband was son of Palaparthi Satyanarayana. The grievance of the defendant is that neither she nor her other sisters or brothers were joined as parties to HMGOP No.8 of 2014 before the Principal District Court, Guntur. Absolutely, the aforesaid contention deserves no merits in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
43. The learned Additional District Judge, as evident from the judgment, thoroughly appreciated the case of the parties and the evidence on record in proper perspective and rightly decreed the Suit of the plaintiffs. Hence, the judgment, dated 02.07.2020, in Original Suit No.79 of 2016, on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District is sustainable under law and facts and absolutely this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the same.
44. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs confirming the judgment and decree, dated 02.07.2020, in Original Suit No.79 of 2016, on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District. The appellant/defendant is directed to vacate and deliver possession 44 AVRB,J AS No.229/2020 of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs/respondents within a period of one (1) month from the date of this judgment. In the event of failure of the appellant/defendant to comply the same, the respondents/plaintiffs are at liberty to recover possession by due process of law.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date: 12.02.2024 Note:
Mark LR Copy.
DSH