VACANT FAC Sri B. Siva Nagi Reddy, Family Judge
III Addl. District Judge
Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District) · Ananthapur · Andhra Pradesh
Based on 20 recent ordersVACANT FAC Sri B. Siva Nagi Reddy, Family Judge, III Addl. District Judge, is posted at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 20 court orders on record since 2013. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles MVOP, OS, AS cases.
Featured Judgments
AS 79/2011 1
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) :
ANANTAPUR
PRESENT: Sri B. Sivanagi Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M.,
Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge
(FAC) III Additional District Judge
Saturday, the 1 st day of June, 2013
APPEAL SUIT NO.79/2011
Between:
1. Sirivalam Prakash
2. Bheemaraju
3. Shankarappa
4. Jagannath
5. Gopal
6. Nagabhushanam .. Appellants
And
1. Bhagyamma
2. Kesavulu .. Respondents
On appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2011 passed in
OS No.179/2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg made
Between:
Sirivalam Prakash .. Plaintiff
And
1. Bhagyamma
2. Kesavulu
3. Bheemaraju
4. Shankarappa
5. Jagannath
6. Gopal
7. Nagabhushanam .. Defendants
This appeal coming on 23.4.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Lakshmanachar, Advocate for the appellants and of Sri N.R.K. Mohan, Advocate for the respondents and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material placed on record, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed by the appellants against respondents aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2011 in OS No.179 of 2008 on the file of Junior
Civil Judge Court, Rayadurg wherein where under the suit filed by the appellant
No.1/plaintiff for partition was dismissed with costs of respondent Nos.1 and 2/
Defendant No.1 and 2.
AS 79/2011 2
2. Appellant No.1 is plaintiff, appellant Nos.2 to 6 are defendant Nos.3 to 7, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit. The parties will be herein after referred as they are arrayed in the suit for the sake of convenience.
3. The bone of contention is a land in an extent of Ac.7.22 cents in
Sy.No.303/A of Rayadurg village within the municipal limits of Rayadurg. The said land and other lands are admittedly originally belongs to one Sirivalam Dasari
Venkata Ramanappa. Said Venkata Ramanappa has four sons (1) Ramadasappa (2) Kesavappa (3) Obanna and (4) Nagabhusanappa @ Bhusanappa.
Ramadasappa through his first wife Achamma got one son Lakshinarasappa @
Bugganna. Said Lakshminarasappa has five sons i.e. (1) Thippeswamy (2) Sreenivasulu (3) Ramadas (4) Hari (5) Bheemaraju (D3) and a daughter
Lakshminarasamma. Said Ramadasappa through his second wife Lokamma got two sons (1) Pedda Venkateshu @ Pedda Venkata Ramanappa (2) Chinna Venkatesam @ Chinna Venkata Ramanappa. Pedda Venkateshu @ Pedda Venkata Ramanappa went in adoption to Nagabhushanam @ Bhushanappa, the 4th son of Venkata
Ramanappa who has no natural son. Chinna Venkatesam @ Chinna Venkata
Ramanappa through his wife Akka Nagamma (D1 in OS 265/91) got two sons (1)
Ramadasappa (2) Kesavulu and 3 daughters (1) Bhagyamma (D1) (2) Janakamma (3) Navaneetha. Kesavappa the second son of Dasari Venkata Ramanappa had a son by name Musturappa. Musturappa married twice. His first wife Hanumakka has no issues. His second wife Saraswathamma was blessed with a son, Prakash i.e. Plaintiff. It seems Hanumakka and Musturappa adopted a son by name Hari.
Obanna the third son of Dasari Venkata Ramanappa had two sons (1) Rudranna who has no issues (2) Kesanna. Kesanna had two sons (1) Sankarappa (2)
Lakshminarayanappa. Lakshminarayanappa had two sons (1) Jagannath (D5) and (2) Anand. As already stated, Nagabhusanappa @ Bhusanappa the forth son of
Dasari Venkata Ramanappa adopted Pedda Venkatesu @ Pedda Venkata
Ramanappa. The said Pedda Venkataramanappa has four sons (1) Govindu (2)
Chandra (3) Gopal (D6) (Plaintiff No.2 in OS No.265/91) (4) Nagabhushana (D7) and a daughter Shobamma. The genealogy of the parties is noted hereunder.
AS 79/2011 3
THE GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE PARTIES AS PER ADMITTED CASE OF BOTH PARTIES
SRIVALAM DASARI VENKATARAMANAPPA
ACHAMMA RAMADASAPPA L LOKAMMA KESHAVAPPA OBANNA NAGABHUSHANAPPA @ BHUSHANAPPA
LAKSHMINARASAPPA @ BUGGANNA PEDAVENKATESULU @
PEDDAVENKATESULU PEDDAVENKATARAMANAPPA
@ PEDDAVENKATARAMANAPPA CHINNAVENKATESULU AKKANAGAMMA RUDRAMMA KESAMMA (ADOPTED SON)) (WENT IN ADOPTION TO @CHINNAVENKATARAMANAPPA (D1 IN O.S.265/91) (NO ISSUES)
NAGABUSHANAM)
BHEEMARAJU (D3)
FOUR MORE SONS NOT
ADDED TO THIS SUIT SANKARAPPA LAKSHMI NARAYANAPPA
(D4) 1.THIPPESWAMY 2.SREENIVASULU RAMADASAPPA KESAVULU (D2) BHAGYAMMA 3.Ramadas (D2 IN O.S.265/91) (D3 IN O.S.265/91 (D1)
4. HARI (DIED)
5. LAKSHMINARASAMMA 1.JANAKAMMA ANAND JAGANNATH 2.NAVANITHA (D5)
(ARE NOT ADDED AS
PARTIES IN THIS SUIT)
1.GOVINDU
HANUMAKKA MUSTURAPPA SARASWATHAMMA GOPAL NAGABUSHANAM
(1ST WIFE) (2ND WIFE) 2.CHANDRA (DIED) DIED IN 1978 (D6) (D7) (PLAINTIFF NO2 3.SHAOBAMMA ARE HARI (ADOPTED SON) PRAKASH (PLAINTIFF) NOT ADDED AS IN O.S.265/91)
PARTIES IN THIS SUIT.
AS 79/2011 4
As per the plaintiff the sons of Venkata Ramanappa divided their ancestral properties except the suit schedule property as the same was set apart for the purpose of burial ground to bury the dead bodies of their family members. Plaintiff and other defendants are residents of Bangalore. Plaintiff and defendant No.6 filed
OS No.265/1991 on the file of Prl Sub-Ordinate Judge, Anantapuram against Akka
Nagamma, Ramadasappa and Kesanna (Wife and two sons of Sirivalam Chinna
Venkatesham) for partition of plaint schedule property. But due to differences between plaintiff and defendant No.6 and shifting of plaintiff to Bangalore they could not prosecute their suit in OS No.265/91 and consequently that suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28.1.1999. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of plaint and B10 is the certified copy written statement of the defendants therein filed through their General Power of Attorney, Chandrakantha Naidu. Ex.B11 is the certified copy of the decree and Ex.B12 is the certified of the judgment of that suit.
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 being residents of Rayadurg are having much influence and they manipulated and obtained pattadar passbooks in their names.
3. In this suit the plaintiff alleged that himself and defendant Nos.3 to 7 approached defendant Nos.1 and 2 for partition of suit schedule property and also convened panchayats. Plaintiff obtained the revenue records i.e. 10(1) account extract, No.2 account extract to show that their ancestors are the owners of the suit land. He alleged that he was not informed by defendant No.6 about the dismissal of OS No.265/1991. So, he filed this suit for partition of his 1/4th share in suit schedule property.
4. This suit was contested by defendant Nos.1 and 2 by filing written statement stating that plaintiffs started second round of litigation after dismissal of OS
No.265/1991. They submitted that the allegations in the earlier suits are inconsistent with the present case. They submitted that the valuation of the suit land was increased and so the Junior Civil Judge has no jurisdiction. They submitted that the four sons of Venkataramanappa divided long back and each of them were enjoying their respective portions that fell to their shares and the suit schedule property was not kept joint as burial ground and the same is not alleged
AS 79/2011 5
in OS No.265/1991. They submitted that in that partition plaint schedule property fell to the share of Obanna (the third son of Venkataramanappa) who in turn sold it to Jayanthi Ramalakshmamma of Rayadurg. Suryakantha Naidu and
Chandrakantha naidu who are the brothers of Akka nagamma paid the entire amount to Jayanthi Ramalakshmamma and took possession of the suit schedule property about 60 years ago. The family members Akka Nagamma were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for the last several years.
Akka Nagamma and his two brothers borrowed Rs.10,000/- on 26.11.1984 and executed registered mortgage deed in favour of Beegala Gurappa S/o Venkatappa mortgaging the suit schedule property. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the said mortgage deed. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 submitted that defendant No.2 paid the entire amount to B. Gopal and B. Sreenivasulu, sons of the said Gurappa on 31.10.2003 and redeemed the mortgage. Ex.B3 is the registered copy of receipt of redemption of mortgage deed dated 31.10.2003. On the same day, defendant
No.2 executed registered gift deed in favour of his sister G. Bhagyamma (D1 herein) and delivered possession of suit schedule property. From then Bhagyamma is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and Government also issued pattadar pass books and she has been raising crops in the said land. They also submitted that Akka Nagamma and her sons having enjoyed the property for several years perfected their rights by adverse possession. As per them, plaintiff’s father Musturappa adopted one Hari before the birth of plaintiff. Thereafter due to differences Musturappa divided their properties under registered partition deed
dated 12.11.1980. Ex.B7 is the certified copy of the partition deed dated
12.11.1980. Under the said partition deed, B-schedule properties mentioned therein fell to the share of the plaintiff. They further submitted that Nagabhushana sold his land to Sirivalam Lokamma, second wife of Ramadasappa, and Chinna
Venkatesulu @ Chinna Venkataramanappa, husband of Akka Nagamma under a registered sale deed dated 6.12.1943. Ex.B5 is the registration copy of the same.
Obanna had no sons, but had two daughters (1) Rudramma and (2) Kesamma.
The said Kesamma had two sons by name Lakshminarayanappa and Sankarappa (D4). As already stated, Obanna sold the plaint schedule property to Jayanthi
AS 79/2011 6
Ramalakshmamma and as such Sankarappa (D3) or D4 to D7 or anyone cannot claim any share in the suit schedule property.
5. D3, D4, D5 and D6 filed separate written statements but in the written statements they supported the plaintiff and claimed 1/4th share to each branch.
6. On the above pleadings the following issues are framed by the trial Court.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 7 are collusive parties and claiming for partition and for separate possession?
3. Whether the plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession of the plaint schedule property?
4. Whether the first defendant is having right, title and possession of the plaint schedule property exclusively as per the documents filed along with written statement?
5. To what relief?
7. To prove his case, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1. He also examined defendant Nos.7, 3, 4 and 6 as PWs.2 to 5 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. Defendant
Nos.2 and 1 themselves examined as DWs.1 and 4 respectively. They also examined DWs.2 and 3 in their support and marked Exs.B1 to B18.
8. After hearing both parties counsel, the learned Junior Civil Judge dealt with the issues 1 to 4 together and after considering the material placed before him and on authorities held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit schedule land is undivided for the purpose of burial ground by the sons of Venkata Ramanappa for cremation of dead bodies of their families and on the other hand the defendants proved that Akka Nagamma mortgaged the suit schedule property in the year 1984 to one Beegala Gurrappa and the said mortgage was not challenged by the plaintiff at any point of time and also in OS No.265/1991 before Sub-ordinate Judge,
Anantapuram and did not show any cogent and convincing reason why he kept quiet till the year 1991 and after dismissal of the suit he has not taken any steps till the year 2008, whereas as per the documents produced by the defendants it is clear that there was transaction between the family members of Sirivalam Venkata
Ramanappa and Jayanthi Ramalakshmamma, Saraswathamma and Gopal
AS 79/2011 7
Krishnaiah Setty and that there was clear partition in between the four sons of
Dasari Venkata Ramanappa and in turn they have sold their properties to some third parties under Exs.B5 and B6 and also there was partition in between the plaintiff and other parties under Ex.B7. The revenue records also clearly establishes the contention of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are able to show that the suit schedule property was devolved upon Sirivalam
Obanna and then he sold it to Jayanthi Ramalakshmamma and after that one
Chandrakantha Naidu has purchased the same and given to Akka Nagamma, who is the mother of defendant Nos.1 and 2, and finally held that plaintiff and defendant
Nos.3 to 7 miserable failed to prove their case by placing sufficient oral and documentary evidence and answered issue No.4 accordingly. Finally the Junior Civil
Judge answered issue No.5 holding that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 7 are
not entitled to the relief as prayed for and dismissed the suit with costs of defendants 1 and 2.
9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree plaintiff, defendant Nos.3 to 7 filed this appeal mainly on the grounds that (1) The judgment of the trial Court is against to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
(2) The trial Court ought to have believed the evidence and the documents produced by them.
(3) The trial Court passed the judgment as if the suit is filed for permanent injunction.
10. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants filed the following petitions:
(1) IA No.817 of 2012 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for receiving the documents filed along with the petition as additional evidence.
(2) IA No.149 of 2013 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for receiving the documents filed along with the petition as additional evidence.
(3) IA No.955 of 2012 under Section 152 CPC to rectify the mistake crept in the plaint and decree passed in OS No.179 of 2008.
AS 79/2011 8
(4) IA No.1324 of 2012 for appointment of commissioner to note down whether tombs are existing in the suit schedule property or not.
11. Arguments of counsel for the appellants and respondent are heard in the appeal and IAs together.
12. Now the point for consideration is
Whether the plaintiff, defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 together and defendant No.6, 7 together are entitled for 1/4th share each in the plaint schedule property?
13. As per the admitted case, the plaint schedule property and other properties were originally belonged to Sirivalam Dasari Venkata Ramanappa who had four sons. As per the plaintiff, the four sons of Sirivalam Dasari Venkata Ramanappa partitioned their ancestral properties but they set apart the plaint schedule property for burial ground to cremate the dead bodies of their family members. But defendant Nos.1 and 2 are denying the said allegation. As per them, all the properties were partitioned by the sons of Sirivalam Dasari Venkata Ramanappa and the suit schedule land fell to the share of Obanna and said Obanna sold the suit schedule property to one Jayanthi Ramalakshmamma. Akka Nagamma, the mother of defendant Nos.1 and 2, is having five brothers who are working as document writers in Rayadurg. Out of them, Suryakantha naidu and Chandrakantha Naidu discharged the debt due to Jayanthi Ramalakshmamma and gave the property to their sister Akka Nagamma. Akka Nagamma along with her sons Ramadasappa and defendant No.2 mortgaged the plaint schedule property to one Beegala Gurrappa
S/o Beegala Venkatappa under a registered mortgage deed dated 26.11.1984.
Ex.B2 is the registration copy of the said registered mortgage deed. That debt was borrowed for family necessities and also for treatment of Ramadasappa. Later on said Ramadasappa and Akka Nagamma died. Defendant No.2 discharged the debt covered by Ex.B2, under Ex.B3 registered receipt dated 31.10.2003, to the sons of
Beegala Gurrappa. Thereafter on the same day, he gifted the suit schedule property to his sister defendant No.1 under registered gift settlement deed Ex.B4.
Thus defendant No.1 got title to the plaint schedule property and she obtained
Ex.B8 pattadar pass book and enjoying the same. She also dug bore well in the suit schedule property and obtained electricity connection. She also availed loan
AS 79/2011 9
facility from State Bank of India, Rayadurg under Ex.B16 Kisan Credit Card pass book. She paid electricity bill Ex.B18 dated 8.11.2010 under Ex.B17, electricity receipt dated 25.11.2010.
14. Thus both parties have not stated the year in which the four sons of
Sirivalam Dasari Venkata Ramanappa partitioned their properties. The defendants filed the following documents:
Ex.B6 : Registered sale deed dated 13.6.1932 under which Obanna, the third son of Dasari Venkata Ramanappa sold his house to one Obaiah. In that sale deed it is stated that he got that house to his share.
Ex.B5 : Registered sale deed dated 6.12.1943 under which Nagabhushanam, the fourth son of Dasari Venkata Ramanappa and his adopted son Pedda Venkata
Ramanappa sold the following lands to Lokamma and Chinna Venkataramanappa who are the second wife and son of Ramadasappa:
Sy.No.409A - Ac.1.72 cents out of which half of the land
Sy.No.440/C - Ac.1.59 cents
So we can conclude that the said partition took place prior to 1932.
15. To prove that suit schedule property was kept joint in that partition, the plaintiff is relying on the following documents:
Ex.A1 : Certified copy of relevant entry in settlement register wherein it is stated that the owners are (1) Jayanthi Rudraiah Setty’s wives Ramalakshmamma,
Saraswathamma, Gopala Setty (2) Venkataramanappagari Kesappa (3)
Ramadasappa (4) Venkataramana the adopted son of Nagabhushana nigehani (guardian) Ramadasappa
Ex.A2 : Copy of 10(1) settlement register No.49 issued by Village Assistant in which the names of owners are stated as (1) Ramalakshmamma, Saraswathamma who are the wives of Jayanthi Rudraiah Setty, Ramagopala Krishnaiah Setty (2)
Venkataramanappagari Kesappa (3) Ramadasappa (4) Venkataramanappa, adopted son of Nagabhushanappa, minor negevahi (may be guardian) Ramasappa.
Ex.A4 : Adangal pahani for fasli 1400 wherein it is stated that the pattadar is
Akaka Nagamma etc.
AS 79/2011 10
Ex.A3 : Copy of register holding certificate issued by Sub-Registrar,
Rayadurg of register No.49 of Rayadurg wherein the owners names are stated as (1) Venkataramanappagari Obanna (2) Kesappa (3) Ramadasappa (4)
Venkataramanappa, adopted son of Nagabhushanam, minor, guardian
Ramadasappa
Ex.A6 : Resettlement register extract issued by Tahasildar, Rayadurg dated 3.11.2010 wherein the owners names are noted as in Ex.A3.
Ex.A5 : Adangal pahani for faslies 1405, 1406, 1408, 1409 and 1411 issued by Tahasildar wherein in column No.12 relating to Khathadar pattadar
Jayaramalakshamamma etc are written. In column No.13 relating to possessors, the names of plaintiff and defendant No.6 are noted.
16. In this case the plaintiff is stating that the suit schedule property was kept joint by the four sons of Dasari Venkata Ramanappa. So Ex.A5 which is against to the contents of the plaintiff is not reliable. As per Exs.A1, A2, A3 and A6 all the sons of Dasari Venkata Ramanappa and Pedda Venkataramanappa and also the two wives of Rudraiah Setty by name Ramalakshmamma and Saraswathamma and one
Ramagopal Setty are mentioned as owners. The plaintiffs are not able to say how the names of Ramalakshmamma, Saraswathamma and Ramagopala Krishnaiah
Setty are entered as owners of the suit land in the settlement register. The said settlement register was prepared in the first decade of 20th century i.e. in between 1901 to 1910. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement are stating that the suit land fell to the share of Obanna, the third son of Dasari Venkataramanappa who in turn sold the same to Jayanthi Ramalakshmamma and that the brothers of
Akka Nagamma got discharged the debt due to Ramalakshmamma and gave the said land to their sister Akka Nagamma. For that also there is no documentary evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that defendant nos.1 and 2 have not filed any documentary evidence to prove that the wives of Rudraiah Setty purchased the property. For that learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that the property was purchased by the wives of Rudraiah Setty for consideration of the amounts less than Rs.100/- and so the said sale is not compulsorily registerable and so no registered document is available to prove the said sale. He further submitted that Akka Nagamma along with her sons
AS 79/2011 11
Ramadasappa and Kesanna (D2) has mortgaged the suit land to Beegala Gurrappa under a registered mortgage deed dated 26.11.1984. Ex.B2 is the registration copy of the said mortgage deed.
17. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that said Beegala Gurrappa is no other than the husband of the sister of Akka Nagamma as per the cross- examination of DW.4. DW.4 in her cross-examination page No.2 deposed as “One Begala Gurrappa is my mother’s sister’s husband.”
18. By relying on these documents we cannot conclude that the story put forward by defendant Nos.1 and 2 is true. As per defendant Nos.1 and 2 after the death of his brother Ramadasappa and mother Akka Nagamma, he had discharged the mortgage deed under Ex.B3 registered receipt dated 31.10.2003 and on the same day he gifted the suit schedule property to his sister Bhagyamma (D1) under
Ex.B4 registered gift deed dated 31.10.2003. As per defendant Nos.1 and 2, defendant No.1 is enjoying the property and obtained pattadar pass book Ex.B8.
Plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the suit land was not divided by the four sons of Dasari Venkata Ramanappa and it was set apart as burial ground. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 also failed to prove that the suit land fell to the share of Obanna and he in turn sold the same to Jayanthi Ramalakshmamma and that thereafter Chandrakantha Naidu and Suryakantha Naidu, the brothers of
Akka Nagamma got discharged the debt due to Ramalakshmamma and gifted the suit land to Akka Nagamma, the mother of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Thus both parties failed to prove their respective cases.
19. Earlier the plaintiff along with defendant No.6 filed OS No.265 of 1991 on the file of Prl Senior Civil Judge Court for partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share in plaint schedule property. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of the plaint in
OS No.265 of 1991. In that case, the plaintiffs therein alleged that Sirivalam
Venkata Ramanappa has three sons (1) Kesavappa (2) Ramadasappa and (3)
Nagabhusappa. They ignored Obanna, the third son of Venkataramanappa. In that suit they alleged that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to the above said three brothers and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same.
Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 [plaintiff and D6 of this suit] are representing two branches
AS 79/2011 12
and they are entitled for 1/3rd share each and together 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule land. That suit was filed against (1) Sirivalam Akka Nagamma and her two sons Sirivalam Ramadasappa and Sirivalam Kesanna (D2 herein). In that suit the plaintiffs therein alleged that all the three sons of Venkataramanappa divided the other properties but the plaint schedule property was kept joint among them and that defendant Nos.1 to 3 therein are very influential and powerful persons in the village and they taking advantage of the same want to somehow or other deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiffs therein. In that suit the defendants therein filed written statement (Ex.B10) through their General Power of Attorney by name Chandrakantha Naidu who is admittedly one of the brothers of Akka
Nagamma. In that written statement they stated that Sirivalam Venkata
Ramanappa had four sons and the four sons divided long back and the plaint schedule property was one of the items of said partition and it fell to the share of
Obanna who inturn sold to Jayanthi Ramalakshmamma of Rayadurg and that
Suryakantha Naidu and Chandrakantha Naidu have paid the entire amount due to
Jayanthi Ramalakshmamma and took possession of the plaint schedule property about 45 years back i.e. prior to filing of the written statement and ever since then the defendants family is in possession and enjoyment of the same and prayed for dismissal of that suit. The other allegations in that written statement are not necessary for this suit.
20. As already stated that defendant No.6 and plaintiff herein who are the plaintiffs therein have not prosecuted that suit and so that suit was dismissed for default on 28.1.1999. Ex.B11 and Ex.B12 are the certified copies of the decree and judgment of that suit respectively. Thereafter the plaintiffs kept quiet till 2008 and then filed this suit stating that Sirivalam Venkata Ramanappa had four sons and they got their ancestral properties divided but set apart the suit schedule property as burial ground to bury the dead bodies of his family members. In this suit he also stated about the earlier suit OS No.265 of 2011 and stated that due to differences between himself and defendant No.6 and also due to his shifting to Bangalore they could not prosecute the earlier suit. Thus in the earlier suit he did not allege that the suit land was set apart by the four sons of Venkataramanappa as burial ground.
But in this suit they are alleging that the suit land was set apart by the four sons of
AS 79/2011 13
Venkata Ramanappa as burial ground. Then he ought to have filed this suit for declaration of his right to use the suit schedule property as burial ground and not for partition of the suit schedule property. On this ground this suit fails.
21. As the trial Court did not accept their contention that the suit schedule was being used as burial ground, the appellants filed IA No.817 of 2012 under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC to receive the photographs of the suit schedule property and written statement in OS No.265 of 1991 as additional evidence to prove that tombs are existing. The appellants also filed IA No.1324 of 2012 for appointment of commissioner to note down whether tombs are existing or not in the suit schedule property. These petitions are opposed by the defendants by filing counters stating that these petitions are only to drag on the matter and these petitions are filed to fill up the gaps. As already stated, even if the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 7 prove that there are tombs in the suit land it will not prove that the suit land was set apart as burial ground by the sons of Dasari Venkata Ramanappa. The certified copy of written statement of the defendants in OS No.265 of 1991 was already filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 as Ex.B10. So, the said document need not be received as additional evidence in this appeal. So the plaintiff, defendant Nos.3 to 7 are not entitled for producing the documents filed along with IA No.817 of 2012 as
additional evidence and for appointment of commissioner as sought for in IA
No.1324 of 2012 and both the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
22. In this suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 took plea that after the death of father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and Hari, the adopted son of his father Musturappa, partitioned the properties under a partition deed dated 12.11.1980. Ex.B7 is the certified copy of the said registered partition deed. As per the contents of Ex.B7 it is clear that Musturappa, the father of the plaintiff is having two wives (1) Hanumakka and (2) Saraswathamma. Hanumakka had no issues. Prior to the birth of the plaintiff, Musturappa had adopted one Hari. Later on Musturappa married Saraswathammaand was blessed with the plaintiff. As per the contents of
Ex.B7 the said Musturappa died two years prior to the original of Ex.B7. So he might have died in 1978. Under Ex.B7 the following lands of Kalugodu village fell to the share of Hanumakka.
AS 79/2011 14
Sy.No.480 Ac.6.25 cents out of Ac.12.41 cents.
The following properties fell to the share of Hari and this plaintiff
Sy.No. Extent 479.1 Ac.0.50 cents 479.2 Ac.9.18 cents 476 A Ac.3.20 cents 478 Ac.3.23 cents 481 Out of Ac.19.90 cents Ac.2.50 cents 480 Out of Ac.12.41 cents Ac.7.41 cents
Ex.B7 was filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 to show that there was no reference of suit schedule property.
23. In this appeal, the plaintiff, defendant Nos.3 to 5 filed IA No.149 of 2013 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to receive the following documents as additional evidence:
1. Sale deed dt.9.5.1935 under which late Musturappa purchased property from one Hanumanthappa S/o Venkataramanappa.
2. Encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Rayadurg from 11.1.1935 to 31.12.1982
In the affidavit filed in support of the petition the plaintiff stated that he is owning certain property at Rangachedu village of Gummagatta mandal of Anantapur
District and the said properties are originally purchased by his father Musturappa under registered sale deed dated 9.5.1935 from one Hanumanthappa and the said properties are the exclusive properties of his father and after death of his father he inherited the same. The said properties are not at all belong to either his grandfather or great grandfather. The trial Court came to wrong conclusion that the properties owned by him are properties of his grandfather. Even though it is found in his evidence, it is deposed without any knowledge how he got the properties. On the date of evidence in the trial Court he was not in possession of the document which is recently found by him and taken the same from the
Registrar Office at Rayadurg on 5.11.2012. After verifying the said document he got knowledge that the properties which are owned by him are exclusive properties
AS 79/2011 15
of his father and subsequently the said properties were partitioned among his family members who are related to his father only. The properties which are owned by his father were not the properties of common ancestors of him and defendant
Nos.1 and 2. So he is filing the said two documents.
24. This petition is opposed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 by filing counter stating that the provisions of order 41 Rule 27 CPC are not properly complied and the contents of the affidavit of the petitioner do not show any bonafides on the part of the petitioners in not producing the document in the trial Court. The documents have no relevancy and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
25. The documents filed along with the petition are not relevant for the purpose of this suit. So, I am of the opinion that these documents need not be received as
additional evidence.
26. Let us answer issues:
Issue Nos.3 and 4:
As already stated, in the suit the plaintiff alleged that the four sons of Dasari
Venkataramanappa set apart the suit land as burial ground and thus himself and defendants are in joint possession of the suit schedule property. But the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 7 failed to prove the said allegation by producing any documentary evidence. The contention of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 7 is also not believable as in early days of 20th century when the alleged partition took place among the four sons of Dasari Venkataramanappa, there were many waste lands and there was no need of burial ground and in those circumstances no sane person will set apart Ac.7.22 cents of patta land as burial ground. In the earlier suit, the plaintiff and defendant No.6 who filed that suit did not allege that the suit land was set apart as burial ground. So we can conclude that after seeing the contention of the defendants in OS No.265 of 1991 and the documents in that suit the plaintiff changed his version and he is contending that the suit land was kept as burial ground and thus himself and the defendants are in joint possession of the suit schedule property. So we can conclude that the plaintiff failed to prove that himself and defendants are in joint possession of the suit schedule property.
Defendant No.1 proved her right, title and possession of the property by filing
AS 79/2011 16
Ex.B2 certified copy of mortgage deed dated 11.12.84, Ex.B3 original registered copy of receipt redemption mortgage deed dated 31.10.2003, Ex.B4 original gift deed dated 31.10.2003, Ex.B8 pattadar pass book, Ex.B14 certified copy of adangal for fasli 1417, Ex.B15 certified copy of adangal for fasli years 1418, 1419, Ex.B17 ‘e’ seva electricity receipt dated 25.11.2010 and Ex.B18 electricity bill dated 8.11.2010. On the other hand, except Ex.A5 the plaintiff has not filed any document. Ex.A5 is against to the contention of the plaintiff. In this suit we need not decide whether defendant No.1 is having right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property. But we have to decide the contention of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was kept joint to use the same as burial ground. So fourth issue need not be answered in this suit. Third issue is answered against the plaintiff, defendant No.3 to 7 and in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2.
27. Issue No.2:
As per the admitted case, plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 7 are sailing in the same boat and engaged the same advocate in this appeal and they are supporting each other. So we can conclude that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 7 are collusive parties. I am of the opinion that this issue is also not necessary for the purpose of this suit.
28. Issue No.1:
As already stated, plaintiff failed to prove that the suit schedule property was set apart by the four sons of Venkataramanappa as burial ground and so he is not entitled to claim 1/4th share of the suit schedule property as prayed for. He, instead of filing a suit for declaration that the suit schedule property is a burial ground of himself, his family members and family members of other branches of defendant Nos.1 to 7, filed this suit for partition. Thus the suit itself is misconceived and misconstrued and is liable to be dismissed.
29. The learned counsel for appellants cited the following decisions:
(1) AIR 1991 Patna 186 in between Chito Mahto and others vs. Lila Mahto and others. In that case the defendants failed to produce any document of settlement showing that the plaintiff acquired joint interest in the suit property.
AS 79/2011 17
Their Lordships held that presumption that properties were ancestral can be drawn in favour of the plaintiff. In para Nos.34 and 38 their Lordships held as “34. …… Under Hindu Law, there is presumption of jointness, but in absence of any document of settlement, the Court has no other option but to draw a presumption that the properties in question were ancestral properties. It is also evidently clear from the deposition of the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff has also been in possession of the land and the rent is being paid jointly.”
38. A record of rights is not a document of title. In this view of the matter, the defendants should have produced the basic document of title. Further no evidence has been brought on record to show as to under what circumstances, settlement was taken in the names of two brothers, even after the parties separated, themselves, which is the specific case of the defendants.”
The above decision is no way helpful to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 7 of this case.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff, defendant Nos.3 to 7 contended that as the members of all branches of the family are represented this suit is not bad for non joinder of necessary parties. In support of his contention he cited a decision reported in (2) AIR 1986 Delhi 121 in between Major Pran Nath Kaushak vs. Rajinder
Nath Kaushik wherein their Lordships in para No.14 held as “14. Luhra, J. in the order dated 30.4.1984, has discussed the position of law whether the impleading of heads of different branches of coparcenery or joint Hindu family is enough in a suit for partition. This has been answered in the affirmative after referring to the principles of Hindu Law as well as certain decision of the High Courts. It was held that is was not necessary at all to have joined the sons of Rajinder Nath as parties in that suit, and that whatever rights these sons have, are qua the share which has fallen to the lot of Rajinder Nath. That in the present case is in the form of rupees 5 lacs which he has obtained. It was also taken note of that there was no fraud on objectors or collusion enacted by Rajinder Nath with his brother, and rather he had resisted the claims of the brothers throughout.”
In this suit, defendant No.1 and 2 have not taken plea that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and no issue is framed and the trial Court also not held that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. So this decision is no way helpful to the appellants.
AS 79/2011 18
The learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 7 contended that even though the earlier suit for partition in OS No.265 of 1991 was dismissed for default it will not bar this suit under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. In support of his contention, he cited a decision reported in (3) AIR 1956 Patna 143 in between Mukha Singh and others vs. Ram
Chariter Singh and others wherein their Lordships in para No.9 held as “In my opinion, the answer to this contention on behalf of the appellants is found in the fact that whenever a co-sharer brings a suit for being confirmed in joint possession it is a suit which could as well have been instituted by him for partition. It is merely an accident that the plaintiff on a particular occasion thinks it proper to bring a suit for confirmation of joint possession and subsequently finding the suit dismissed for default under O.9 R.8, Civil PC or finding it difficult to continue in joint possession with his co-sharer thinks it proper to institute a suit for partition. The principle, therefore, in either case, in my opinion, ought to be the same.” (4) AIR 1959 Punjab 252 in between Majohar Lal Behari Lal vs. Onkar Das alias Omkar Dass and others wherein their Lordships in para No.6 of the decision held as “6. Apart from the above, the Court trying the previous suit did not proceed to enforce the agreement and did not dismiss the suit on the basis of the same. The case had been adjourned to 21 st February, 1947 when the plaintiff did not appear and the Court proceeded to dismiss the suit in default under the provisions of Order IX Rule 8 CPC. There can be no doubt that an order under Order IX Rule 8 CPC, cannot amount to resjudicata for the simple reason that the suit cannot be deemed to have been heard and finally decided by means of this order. The only effect of an order passed under Order IX Rule 8 CPC is that a fresh suit based on the same cause of action is barred by the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 CPC. It has, however, been repeatedly held that a suit for partition dismissed for default under Order IX Rule VIII CPC does not bar a subsequent suit for partition. The reason is that the right to enforce a partition is a continuous right which is a legal incident of a joint tenancy and which ensures so long as the joint tenancy continues; see in this connection Bisheshar Das vs. Ram Prasad, ILR 28 All 627; Madhura Gramani vs. Sesha Reddy, ILR 49 Madras 938; (AIR 1926 Madras 1018) and Thayyan vs. Kannikandath Kizhe Purakkal, AIR 1935 Madras 458. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that his clients having denied the joint status of the parties in the previous suit it must be deemed that the joint status came to an end. We are afraid, we cannot accept such curious contention. The plaintiff alleged in the previous suit that the property was joint and relies on the same joint tenancy in the present suit. He will obviously be entitled to a decree for partition if it is found that the property claimed to be joint by him is actually joint and the suit will obviously fail if it is proved that this allegation made by him is untrue.
AS 79/2011 19
For the purposes of deciding this issue it has to be assumed that the plaintiff’s suit is for partition of a certain joint property which was joint at the time of the previous suit and continues to be joint up till now. The plaintiff in the previous case applied for restoration of his suit but his application was dismissed on the ground that he had failed to establish sufficient cause for his non appearance in the court. In first appeal from order No.2 of 1949 the order of the trial Court refusing to restore the suit was affirmed by Soni J. on 7 th October, 1949. This, however, does not affect the decision in the present case, as for all intends and purposes, it is being assumed that the previous suit was dismissed in default under the provisions of Order IX, Rule 13 of CPC. The present suit being for partition of the property cannot be deemed to be bar by the provisions of Order IX, Rule 9 CPC, for the reasons given above. The previous order dated 21.2.1947 cannot bar the present suit either on the ground of resjudicata or on the ground of estoppel and the findings of the trial Court on issue No.2 is obviously erroneous so far as the claim of the partition is concerned.” (5) 2013 (1) KCCR 672 (DB) Karnataka High Court in between S.K.
Lakshminarasappa since deceased by his LRs vs. B. Rudraiah and others wherein in para No.45 their Lordships held as “45.Rule 9 of Order 9 is based on sound public policy that no defendant should be vexed twice on the same cause of action. The only effect of an order made under Order 9, Rule 8 is that a fresh suit based on the same cause of action is precluded by the provisions of Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code. It will not apply to the cases where the cause of action is recurring or continuous. A suit for partition dismissed for default under Order 9, Rule 8 of CPC does not bar a subsequent suit for partition. The reason is that the right to enforce a partition is a continuous right, which is a legal incident of a joint tenancy and which ensures so long as the joint tenancy continues. Cause of action is continuous in partition cases which subsists so long as the property is held jointly. In other words, the joint owner can file a suit for partition, until partition is actually effected, irrespective of the fact for partition, until partition is actually effected, irrespective of the fact whether earlier suits for such partition were dismissed for default or withdrawn or an earlier decree for partition was not acted upon.”
Learned counsel for the plaintiff, defendant Nos.3 to 7 also contended that the suit for partition has no limitation. In support of his contention he cited a decision reported in (6) AIR 1995 SC 1789 in between Vidya Devi alias Vidya Vati (Dead by L.Rs) vs. Prem Prakash and others wherein the majority of the judges in para No.21 of the decision held as
AS 79/2011 20
“21. The legislature has not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a suit for partition because partition is not an incident attached to the property and there is always a running cause of action for seeking partition by one of the co- sharers if and when he decides not to keep his share joint with other co-sharers. Since the filing of the suit is wholly dependent upon the will of the co-sharer, the period of limitation, specially the date or time from which such period would commence, could not have been possibly provided for by the legislature and, therefore, in this Act also a period of limitation, so far as suits for partition are concerned, has not been prescribed. This, however, does not mean that a co- sharer who is arrayed as a defendant in the suit cannot raise the plea of adverse possession against theco-sharer who has come before the Court as a plaintiff seeking partition of his share in the joint property.”
30. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2 cited the following decision:
(1) 2000(2) ALD 70 in between Parepalli Pallalayya vs. Kasagani Ramulu and others.
That decision is relating to Article 58 and 65. So the decision is no way helpful to defendant Nos.1 and 2 to contend that the suit is barred by limitation.
(2) 2007(5) ALD 622 in between T. Bhoopal Reddy and another v. K.R. Laxmi
Bai (died) per LRs. And another.
That decision is also not applicable as plaintiff therein claimed partition on the basis of an agreement said to have been executed by defendant No.1 therein.
(3) 2010 (6) ALT 109 in between K. Bhaskar Rao vs. K.A. Rama Rao wherein their Lordships held in para No.22 as “The defect of non joinder of necessary parties being fatal, the same cannot be cured by impleading them in appeal.”
This decision is also not helpful to defendant Nos.1 and 2 as they did not take plea that suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.
31. IA No.955/2012:
This petition is filed by the appellants under Section 151 and 152 of CPC to rectify the mistakes crept in the plaint and the decree passed in OS No.179 of 2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg either by superseding the decree or to merge the same in the fresh decree passed by this Court.
AS 79/2011 21
32. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition the plaintiff submitted that due to inadvertence and mistake in para No.6 and para No.9 (of plaint) where the particulars of the suit claim sub para (2) it is typed as 1/3rd share and the value of the said share is shown as Rs.61,000/-. While disposing of the said suit the trial
Court repeated the mistake by incorporating in the decree. Whereas in the relief column he prayed to grant 1/4th share. In the judgment the trial Court dismissed his prayer. After dismissal of the suit in OS No.179 of 2008 along with others he preferred appeal. Before numbering the appeal, the office took the objections that the decree is not correctly drafted as it is inconsistent to the relief prayed. Hence, the appeal memo was returned on 14.9.2011 for rectification of the decree. Then he filed an application before the trial Court for rectification of plaint and decree.
The trial Court returned that petition with an endorsement stating that it has no power to rectify the mistake as the case is already disposed off. With the said endorsement he again represented before the Prl District and Sessions Judge,
Anantapur where the Hon’ble District Judge passed an order directing the office to number the appeal and simultaneously made an observation by directing him to take proper steps in the proper time to rectify the mistake crept in the decree.
33. This petition is opposed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 by filing counter stating that the plaint has to be amended before the decree can be amended. The provision of law quoted for amending the lapse is not correct. The plaintiff has claimed two reliefs in the prayer and so the petition itself is not maintainable. He submitted that it is the duty of the lower court to correct the mistake in the decree and the appellant court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application.
34. The plaintiff cited a decision reported in AIR 1959 AP 360 in between
Narkulla Venkayya and another vs. Noona Satyanarayana and another wherein their Lordships held that in appropriate cases where mistakes have arisen by reason of inadvertence in entering wrong survey number in the plaint, the Appellate
Court has ample powers under S. 152 to correct such mistakes which have crept into the judgment and decree. Their Lordships in para No.10 held as “The trial Court could not rectify such mistakes in the judgment or decree which has been superseded by the appellate Court’s decree or has merged into the same. The counsel for the petitioner realized this mistake and has filed a petition
AS 79/2011 22
to this Court for correcting the error as the appeal is pending before us. We have given opportunity to the other party to file counter and heard his counsel in that behalf. The respondents no doubt oppose the petition but there can be no doubt that the mistake that has crept into the plaint by sheer inadvertence is responsible for the mistake or error in the decree. In exercising of our powers of appeal in relation to the decree under appeal, it is perfectly open to us to correct the necessary mistakes. We therefore direct corrections be made in the plaint schedule and also in the decree in relation to the acreage of Survey No.526 and S.No.529. The petition filed by the plaintiff is therefore allowed. No orders are necessary in the revision petition.”
35. In this case, in OS No.256 of 1991 the plaintiff and defendant No.6 claimed 1/3rd share each in the plaint schedule property. In this suit, the plaintiff claimed 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property. But in para No.9 of the plaint where the particulars of the suit claim are mentioned in serial No.2 he stated the market value of the 1/3rd share for the purpose of Court fee is Rs.61,000/-. It seems the office noted the mistake and corrected the same with pencil. But the counsel of the plaintiff did not make the corrections in the plaint. The same mistake was carried while preparing the decree of the suit by the trial Court. As the appeal is pending
before this Court, in view of the decision in Narkulavenkayya case cited by the
learned counsel for the plaintiff, this Court is having power to correct the necessary mistakes crept in the plaint and decree. Hence, this petition has to be allowed.
36. Issue No.2:To what relief?
In view of the decisions arrived in the above issues, this appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs of respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2 throughout.
37. AS No.79/2011:
In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs of respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2 throughout confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2011 passed by Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg in OS No.179 of 2008.
IA.No.955/2012:
In the result, this petition is allowed and appellant No.1/plaintiff is permitted to correct the plaint and the office is directed to correct the decree as prayed for in the petition.
AS 79/2011 23
IA No.817/2012:
In the result, this petition is dismissed.
IA No.1324/2012:
In the result, this petition is dismissed.
IA No.149/2013:
In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced
by me in open Court, on this the 1st day of June, 2013.
Judge, Family Court,
(FAC) III Addl District Judge (FTC) Anantapur
AS 79/2011 24
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) :
ANANTAPUR
PRESENT: Sri B. Sivanagi Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M.,
Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge
(FAC) III Additional District Judge
Saturday, the 1 st day of June, 2013
APPEAL SUIT NO.79/2011
Between:
1. Sirivalam Prakash S/o Late Musturappa, 44 yrs, Working in Deccan Harold and Prajavani Press, Employee No.27613, 75, M.G. Road, Bangalore
2. Bheemaraju S/o Late Bugganna, 53 yrs, R/at Budimepalli village, Brahmasamudram Mandal, Kannepalli Post, Anantapur Dist
3. Shankarappa S/o Late Narasimhappa, 73 yrs, Sinecure, R/o D.No.150, Srirama Road, Ramakrishna Block, 1st Main, Thyagaraja Nagar, Bangalore
4. Jagannath S/o Late Narayanappa, 43 yrs, R/o Budemepalli vlg., Brahmasamudram Mandal, Kanepalli Post, Anantapur Dist
5. Gopal S/o Late Venkatesulu, 48 yrs, Electrician, R/o Lakshmi Bazar, Electronic Service Centre, Rayadurg Town, Anantapur Dist
6. Nagabhushanam S/o Late Venkatesulu, 68 yrs, Retired KEB Employee, R/o D.No.108, 5th Cross, 1st Stage,
Teachers Colony, Bangalore-78. .. Appellants/Plaintiff & D3 to D7
And
1. Bhagyamma W/o Velekar, Hanumanthappa, 50 years, House wife, R/o C/o Lakshmi Bazar, Near Panduranga Temple, Rayadurg Town, Anantapur Dist
2. Kesavulu S/o Late Chinna Venkatesulu, 48 yrs, Sinecure R/o C/o Late Chandrakanth Naidu, Lakshmi Bazar, Opp. State Bank of India,
Rayadurg Town, Anantapur Dist .. Respondents/D1 & D2
On appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2011 passed in
OS No.179/2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg made
Between:
Sirivalam Prakash .. Plaintiff
And
1. Bhagyamma
2. Kesavulu
3. Bheemaraju
4. Shankarappa
5. Jagannath
6. Gopal
7. Nagabhushanam .. Defendants
AS 79/2011 25
Value for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction the appeal is valued at Rs.1,44,000/- and 1/3rd share of the same is at Rs.61,000/- and market value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.70,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.800/- is paid under Section 34(2) r/w Sec.49 of APCF and SV Act, 1956.
This appeal coming on 23.4.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Lakshmanachar, Advocate for the appellants and of Sri N.R.K. Mohan, Advocate for the respondents and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material placed on record, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:
(i) That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs of respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2 throughout and
(ii) That the appellants do pay respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2 a sum of Rs.25,002/- towards costs of this appeal and do bear their own costs of Rs.5,800/-.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE COURT, ON THIS THE 1st DAY OF JUNE, 2013
Judge, Family Court,
(FAC) III Addl District Judge (FTC), Anantapuram
Table of Costs
Appellants Respondents 1 & 2 Stamp on vakalat Rs.2-00 Stamp on appeal Rs. 800-00 - Stamp on process - Stamp on petition - Typing charges - Advocate fee Rs.5,000-00 Rs.25,000-00 Process writing charges - - Total: Rs.5,800-00 Rs.25,002-00
S C H E D U L E
Land situated in Rayadurg within Municipal limits and with Sub-Registration District Rayadurg within the Registration of District Anantapuram
Govt Dry S.No.303-A Ac.7.22 cents Rs.1-81 P.S. Rs.1,44,000/-
Judge, Family Court,
(FAC) III Addl District Judge (FTC), Anantapuram
OS 95/2011 1
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) :
ANANTAPURAM
PRESENT: Sri B. Sivanagi Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M.,
Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge
(FAC) III Additional District Judge (FTC)
Monday, the 3 rd day of June, 2013
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.95/2011
Between:
Rallapalli Uma Maheswari W/o Rallapalli Mallanna, 45 yrs, Hindu, House Manager, R/at D.No.17/109,
Neeruganti Street, Old Town, Anantapuram .. Plaintiff
And
1. Akuleti Jayaraman S/o Akuleti Ramappa, 72 yrs, r/at D.No.16/726, Uma Nagar, Anantapuram
2. Akuleti Pedda Kullayappa S/o Akuleti Ramappa, 72 yrs, r/at D.No.18/15B, Uma Nagar, Anantapuram
3. Akuleti Chinna Kullayappa Gowd S/o Akuleti Ramappa, 70 yrs, R/at D.No.28/5/634, LIG Housing Colony, Anantapuram
4. Akuleti Venkataramana @ Ramana Babu S/o Akuleti Ramappa, 40 yrs, R/at D.No.18/15B, Uma Nagar, Anantapuram
5. Akuleti Durgamma W/o Akuleti Kullayappa, 45 yrs
6. Akuleti Chidambari S/o Akuleti Kullayappa, 28 yrs
7. Akuleti Subramanyam S/o Akuleti Kullayappa, 23 yrs
8. Akuleti Sreelekha D/o Akuleti Kullayappa, 12 yrs Minor rep by NF guardian, mother Durgamma, Def.No.5 (D5 to D8 are r/at D.No.2/387, Bukkarayasamudram vlg., & Mandal, Anantapuram Dist.)
9. Raja Venkata Sathyanarayana S/o Raja Lakshminarayana, 50 yrs, R/at D.No.11/179-A1, Sainagar, Anantapuram
10. Raja Sreenivasulu S/o Raja Lakshminarayana, 48 yrs, D.No.11-179, Sainagar, Anantapuram
11. Raja Venkata Sai Krishnamurthy S/o Lakshninarayana, 41 yrs, r/at D.No.12-238, Sainagar, Anantapuram
12. Kaluva Nageswara Rao S/o Kaluva Venkata Subbaiah, 43 yrs, R/at D.No.10-951, SBI Road, Kovelakuntla Village & Mandal, Kurnool Dist.
13. Kaluva Siva Nagaiah S/o Kaluva Venkata Subbaiah, 48 yrs, R/at D.No.10-99, SBI Road, Kovelakuntla vlg., And Mandal, Kurnool Dist
14. B.C.V. Subbaiah S/o Bachu Rama Subbaiah, 68 yrs, Business, R/at D.No.2/7, Avuku village & Mandal, Kurnool Dist.
.. Defendants
Suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s 1/12th share by metes and bounds in the plaint schedule property with reference to good and bad nature of soil and for costs of the suit.
Plaint presented on 28.9.2011
Plaint filed on 28.9.2011
OS 95/2011 2
Cause of action for the suit arose about six months back when differences arose between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and when defendant No.1 started acting adverse to the interest of the plaintiff and subsequently when the plaintiff demanded for partition and separate possession of her 1/12th share in the plaint schedule property and when defendant Nos.1 to 8 postponed to come for amicable partition and on 29.6.2011 when defendant Nos.1 and 2 have executed a nominal sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.9 to 14 regarding item No.4 of the plaint schedule property and when defendant Nos.9 to 14 entered into the sale deed knowing pretty well about the disputes between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 with a view to deprive her right in the plaint schedule property and when the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 are continuing to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, all at Anantapuram where the property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court.
Value for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued as follows:
Value of the plaint schedule property is Rs.7,69,80,200-00 Value of plaintiff’s 1/12th share is Rs. 64,15,016-17 3/4th value of the same is Rs. 48,11,262-50
Value for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.48,11,262.50 and a Court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under Section 34(2) of APCF and SV Act.
This suit coming on 30.4.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri N.R.K. Mohan, Advocate for defendant Nos.1 to 4, Sri B. Kullayappa, Advocate for defendant Nos.9 to 14, defendant Nos.5 to 8 remained ex parte, and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material placed on record, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:
(i) That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs of defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 9 to 14 and
(ii) That the plaintiff do pay defendant Nos.1 to 4 a sum of Rs.20,002/-, defendant Nos.9 to 14 a sum of Rs.2/- (FC Memo not filed) towards costs of this suit and do bear her own costs of Rs.26,227/-.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE COURT, ON THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2013
Judge, Family Court,
(FAC) III Addl District Judge (FTC), Anantapuram
Table of Costs
Plaintiff D1 to D4 D9 to D14
Stamp on vakalat Rs. 2-00 Rs.2-00 Rs.2-00 Stamp on appeal Rs. 200-00 - - Stamp on process Rs. 1,000-00 - - Stamp on petition Rs. 10-00 - - Typing charges - - - Advocate fee Rs.25,000-00 Rs.20,000-00 Process writing charges Rs. 15-00 -
Total: Rs.25,227-00 Rs.20,002-00 Rs.2-00
(FC Memo not filed)
OS 95/2011 3
S C H E D U L E
Property situated within RD and SRD of Anantapur in Anantapur Rural village fields.
1. Govt. Dry Sy.No.16 Extent Ac.3.30 cents out of this Ac.1.65 cents
2. Govt. Dry Sy.No.11 Extent Ac.11.75 cents out of this Ac.5.87 ½ cents
3. Govt. Dry Sy.No.12 Extent Ac.12.45 cents out of this Ac.6.22 ½ cents
4. Govt. Dry Sy.No.17 Extent Ac.4.31 cents out of this Ac.2.15 ½ cents
All the above lands are bounded by :
East : Lands of Nabi Sab, Karamuddin Sab South : Land of Aswartha Reddy West : Land of Chinta Nagappa North : Land in the same Sy.Nos. which has fallen to the share of Akuleti Lakshmanna (Brother of Akuleti Ramappa, father of D1 to D3 under a registered partition deed dated 8.5.1954)
Judge, Family Court,
(FAC) III Addl District Judge (FTC), Anantapuram
OS 95/2011 4
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) :
ANANTAPUR
PRESENT: Sri B. Sivanagi Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M.,
Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge
(FAC) III Additional District Judge (FTC)
Monday, the 3 rd day of June, 2013
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.95/2011
Between:
Rallapalli Uma Maheswari .. Plaintiff
And
1. Akuleti Jayaraman
2. Akuleti Pedda Kullayappa
3. Akuleti Chinna Kullayappa Gowd
4. Akuleti Venkataramana @ Ramana Babu
5. Akuleti Durgamma
6. Akuleti Chidambari
7. Akuleti Subramanyam
8. Akuleti Sreelekha (Minor rep by NF guardian, mother Def.No.5)
9. Raja Venkata Sathyanarayana
10. Raja Sreenivasulu
11. Raja Venkata Sai Krishnamurthy
12. Kaluva Nageswara Rao
13. Kaluva Siva Nagaiah
14. B.C.V. Subbaiah .. Defendants
This suit coming on 30.4.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri N.R.K. Mohan, Advocate for defendant Nos.1 to 4, Sri B. Kullayappa, Advocate for defendant Nos.9 to 14, defendant Nos.5 to 8 remained ex parte, and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material placed on record, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of her 1/12th share in the suit schedule property with reference to good and bad nature of the soil and for costs of the suit.
2. The suit schedule properties are the lands situated in Anantapur rural village which are noted below. They will be herein after referred as the suit schedule properties.
Sy.No. Full Extent Extent 16 Ac.3.30 cents 1.65 11 11.75 5.87 ½ 12 12.45 6.22 ½ 2.15 ½ 17 4.31
OS 95/2011 5
3. As per the plaintiff, the suit schedule properties and other properties originally belong to one A. Ramappa and Lakshmanna who are the sons of one
Ramanna of Anantapur. In the family partition under registered partition deed
dated 8.5.1954 the suit schedule properties fell to the share of Ramanna. Ex.A1 is
the certified copy of the said partition deed. The plaintiff is alleging that the original of Ex.A1 is with defendant No.1. Said Ramanna died about 40 years ago leaving behind his sons defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Sreeramulu. Sreeramulu died about 25 years ago leaving behind his only son Kullayppa. Said Kullayappa died about 6 years ago leaving behind a widow defendant No.5 and two sons defendant
Nos.6 and 7 and a daughter defendant No.8. Plaintiff submits that she is the daughter, defendant No.2 (in fact defendant No.4) is the son of defendant No.1.
Herself, defendant Nos.1 to 8 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suits schedule property. Since 6 months misunderstandings arose between her and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and since then defendant No.1 is acting adverse to her interest. So she filed the suit. She also submitted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 sold an extent of Ac.1.0.77 cents in item No.4 of suit schedule property to defendant
Nos.9 to 14 under a registered sale deed dated 29.6.2011 for a meager value of
Rs.5,25,000/- without the knowledge of other coparceners and not for the benefit of the joint family. Ex.A2 is the registration copy of the registered sale deed dated 29.6.2011. She submitted that the family of herself, defendant Nos.1 to 8 is affluent family having good income from the suit schedule properties. There is sufficient cash and gold. Absolutely there is no need for defendant Nos.1 and 2 to alienate the plaint schedule property. She alleged that to deprive her share, defendant Nos.1 and 2 colluded with defendant Nos.9 to 11 and executed original of
Ex.A2. So she filed this suit.
4. This suit is contested by defendant Nos.1 to 4, 11 to 14. Defendant Nos.5 to 8 remained ex parte. Defendant Nos.1 and 11 filed separate written statements.
Defendant Nos.2 to 4 adopted the written statement of defendant No.1. Defendant
Nos.9, 10, 12 to 14 adopted the written statement of defendant No.11. In his written statement defendant No.1 admitted the relationship of the parties and that suit schedule property belongs to Akuleti Ramappa and Lakshmanna. As per him, it is the self acquired property of Ramappa and Lakshmanna and they acquired the
OS 95/2011 6
same jointly and were enjoying the same jointly but not as coparceners. He admitted the partition deed, the original of Ex.A1. As per him, it was partitioned among co-owners. It cannot be treated as joint family property in which plaintiff can claim any share. He submitted that his father died in the year 1990.
Sreeramulu predeceased his father. Hence, the question of Ramappa died leaving behind Sreeramulu does not arise. He submitted that the property is inherited by him and his brothers and Kullayappa as legal heirs of Ramappa as per Section 8 of
Hindu Succession Act. The property which is inherited by them is the self acquired property in which neither his sons nor the plaintiff have any right. He admitted the sale deed under the original of Ex.A2. He submitted that himself, defendant Nos.2 and 3 along with legal heirs of Sreeramulu have partitioned the property and they have been enjoying the property fell to their respective share. Pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued to them. The plaintiff is aware of the same. But she unnecessarily added his brothers and legal heirs of Sreeramulu but they are not necessary parties. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 sold the property which fell to their shares. He also sold the property in Sy.No.11 to third parties. He prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. Defendant No.11 in his written statement expressed his ignorance about the relationship of plaintiff with defendant Nos.1 to 8. He admitted the purchase of land under Ex.A2 by defendant Nos.9 to 14 from defendant Nos.1 and 2. As per him, said purchase was for valid consideration and they are bona fide purchasers.
He submitted that the suit for partial partition is not maintainable. Plaintiff suppressed true facts. Suit is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties.
He submitted that the plaintiff failed to state how she is entitled for 1/12th share in the suit property as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As per the amendment an unmarried daughter as on 5.9.1985 only entitled to a share in the coparcenery property. A daughter married prior to 5.9.1985 and prior partition effected before amendment not entitled to a share. He submitted that the plaintiff was married
before 1985 much earlier to the amendment. The plaintiff though a coparcener by
birth but a married daughter and hence not entitled to a share in the coparcener property of her father under Section 6(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He submitted that the four sons of Akuleti Ramappa who are D1 to D3 and their
OS 95/2011 7
deceased brother Sreeramulu got divided their joint family properties long back.
They are living separately and they also sold away their properties in their own right without the consent of other divided family members just because they have no necessity to inform then and the other divided family members never objected at any time of their alienations. He submitted that in view of the rising cost of land the plaintiff is put forth by the other defendants only for wrongful gain against defendant Nos.9 to 14. The cause of action set forth by the plaintiff is false and invented for the purpose of filing this unjust suit and to deprive the right of defendant Nos.9 to 14. He submitted that the court fee paid is not correct. He submitted that the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the true facts and hence she is not entitled for any relief. He prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
6. On the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:
1. Whether the suit property is coparcener property or joint property of Akuleti Ramappa and Akuleti Lakshmanna?
2. Whether the suit property is liable for partition?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/12th share in the suit property?
4. To what relief?
7. To prove her case, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. Defendants examined defendant No.1 as DW.1 and marked no documents.
8. After closure of both parties evidence, arguments of both parties counsel are heard.
9. Issue Nos.1 to 3:
As per the admitted case, one Akuleti Ramanna got two sons (1) Ramappa and (2) Lakshmanna. Ramanna purchased the following properties under registered sale deed dated 20.10.1944 from Kammuru Karimuddin. Ex.A3 is the registration copy of the said registered sale deed.
Lands in Anantapur Rural village
Sy.No. Full Extent Extent sold 11 11.75 Ac.5.87 ½ cents 12 12.45 Ac.6.22 ½ cents 17 4.31 Ac.2.15 ½ cents Total : Ac.14.25 ½ cents
OS 95/2011 8
Said Ramappa and his brother Lakshmanna partitioned their properties under registered partition deed dated 8.5.1954. Ex.A1 is the registration copy of the said registered partition deed. Under the original of Ex.A1 the following properties fell to the share of Ramappa which are mentioned in ‘A’ schedule of Ex.A1.
Sy.No. Total Extent Extent given to Ramappa 16 Ac.3.30 cents Ac.1.65 cents 11 Ac.11.75 cents Ac.5.87 ½ cents Southern side 12 Ac.12.45 cents Ac.6.22 ½ cents 17 Ac.4.31 cents Ac.2.15 cents Total Ac.15.90 ½
The following properties fell to the share of Lakshmanna which are in ‘B’ schedule of Ex.A1:
Sy.No. Total Extent Extent given to Ramappa 16 Ac.3.30 cents Ac.1.65 cents 11 Ac.11.75 cents Ac.5.87 ½ cents Northern side 12 Ac.12.45 cents Ac.6.22 ½ cents 17 Ac.4.31 cents Ac.2.15 cents Total Ac.15.90 ½
From the recitals of Ex.A1 it is clear that apart from the lands purchased by
Ramanna under Ex.A3, the brothers have purchased the remaining extents of the lands in the above said survey numbers and Sy.No.16 and they partitioned the same under the original of Ex.A1 registered partition deed. The said Ramappa got four sons. (1) Defendant No.1 (2) Defendant No.2 (3) Defendant No.3 and (4)
Sreeramulu. Plaintiff is the daughter and defendant No.4 is the son of defendant
No.1. The fourth son of Ramappa i.e., Sreeramulu died about 24 years ago leaving his son Kullayappa. Said Kullayappa died about 6 years ago leaving behind his wife, defendant No.5, and children, defendant Nos.6 to 8.
10. As per the admitted case, defendant Nos.1 and 4 sold Ac.1-07.75 cents in
Sy.No.17/3 under a registered sale deed dated 29.6.2011 to defendant Nos.9 to 14.
Ex.A2 is the registration copy of the sale deed. The plaintiff being the daughter is claiming that she got 1/12th share in the suit schedule properties which Ramappa got under Ex.A1 partition deed. As per her, as Ramappa is her paternal grandfather and she being a coparcener of the joint family is entitled for 1/12th share in the suit schedule properties.
OS 95/2011 9
11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that admittedly the suit schedule properties were got by Ramappa, the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff and after his death it devolved to the coparcenery consisting defendant Nos.1 to 3 and late
Sreeramulu. Under Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act as amended Act, 2005 the plaintiff who is daughter has to be treated equally with defendant No.4, the son of defendant No.1 and so the plaintiff will become one of the coparceners of the Hindu joint family of defendant No.1. Admittedly there was no partition under registered partition deed or decree of the Court among the sons of Ramappa prior to 20.12.2004. So the plaintiff being the coparcener is entitled for 1/12th share in the suit schedule properties. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision reported in AIR 2012 SC 169 in between Ganduri Koteshwaramma and Anr., vs.
Chakiri Yanandi and Anr. wherein their Lordships in para Nos.12 to 14 of the decision held as
“12. 1956 Act is an Act to codify the law relating to intestate succession
among Hindus. This Act has brought about important changes in the law of
succession but without affecting the special rights of the members of a Mitakshara Coparcenary. The Parliament felt that non-inclusion of daughters in the Mitakshara
Coparcenary property was causing discrimination to them and, accordingly,
decided to bring in necessary changes in the law. The statement of objects and
reasons of the 2005 Amendment Act, inter alia, reads as under:
...The retention of the Mitakshara coparcenary property without
including the females in it means that the females cannot inherit in
ancestral property as their male counterparts do. The law by excluding
the daughter from participating in the coparcenary ownership not only
contributes to her discrimination on the ground of gender but also has
led to oppression and negation of her fundamental right of equality
guaranteed by the Constitution. Having regard to the need to render
social justice to women, the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu,
Karnataka and Maharashtra have made necessary changes in the law
giving equal right to daughters in Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary
property.
13. With the above object in mind, the Parliament substituted the existing Section 6 of the 1956 Act by a new provision vide 2005 Amendment Act. After substitution, the new Section 6 reads as follows:
6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.- (1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,-
(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;
(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;
(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said
coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a
Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a
reference to a daughter of a coparcener:
OS 95/2011 10
Provided that nothing contained in this Sub-section shall affect or
invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or
testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the
20th day of December, 2004.
(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of
Sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary
ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act or any other law for the time being in force in, as property
capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.
(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property of a
Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by
testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act
and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed
to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,-
(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;
(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased
daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the
time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of
such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and
(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son
or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got
had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be
allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-
deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this Sub-section, the interest of a
Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the
property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the
property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of
whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.
(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005, no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son,
grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his
father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the
pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-
grandson to discharge any such debt:
Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the
commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005,
nothing contained in this Sub-section shall affect -
(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or
(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any
such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be
enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same
manner and to the same extent as it would have been
enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005 had not been enacted.
Explanation.-For the purposes of Clause (a), the expression "son",
"grandson" or "great-grandson" shall be deemed to refer to the son,
grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or
adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005.
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which
has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004.
OS 95/2011 11
Explanation. -For the purposes of this section "partition" means any
partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under
the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree
of a court.
14. The new Section 6 provides for parity of rights in the coparcenary property
among male and female members of a joint Hindu family on and from September
9, 2005. The Legislature has now conferred substantive right in favour of the
daughters. According to the new Section 6 , the daughter of a copercener becomes a coparcener by birth in her own rights and liabilities in the same manner as the son. The declaration in Section 6 that the daughter of the coparcener shall have same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as she would have been a
son is unambiguous and unequivocal. Thus, on and from September 9, 2005, the
daughter is entitled to a share in the ancestral property and is a coparcener as if she had been a son.”
12. Whereas learned counsel for the defendants contended that as per the admitted case the suit schedule properties and other properties were purchased by
Ramappa under the original of Ex.A3 registered sale deed dated 20.10.1954 and it seems some other properties were also purchased. Thereafter Ramappa and
Lakshmanna partitioned their properties under registered partition deed dated 8.5.1954 (Ex.A1 is the registration of the registered partition deed). In that partition, Ramappa got the suit schedule properties. He submitted that even though there is presumption that there is a joint family but there is no presumption that joint family is having joint family property. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in AIR 2007 SC 1808 in between Makhan Singh (D) by Lrs. Vs.
Kulwant Singh in para Nos.6 and 7 held as
“6…….In this connection the judgment in D.S. Lakshmaiah case (D.S.
Lakshmaiah and Anr. v. L. Balsubramanyam and Anr. MANU/SC/0639/2003)
becomes relevant. It had been observed that property could not be presumed to
be a joint Hindu family property merely because of the existence of a joint Hindu family and raised an ancillary question in the following terms: The question to be determined in the present case is as to who
is required to prove the nature of property whether it is joint Hindu
family property or self-acquired property of the first appellant.
7. The query was answered in paragraph 18 in the following terms:
The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of
a property being joint family property only on account of existence of
a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the
property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so
asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family
property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the
property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who
claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the
property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that
was available.”
OS 95/2011 12
13. So we can conclude that there is no presumption that a property is joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the property is joint family property. In this case, plaintiff has not produced any evidence to prove that Ramappa and Lakshmanna were having any ancestral properties and with that property the suit schedule properties could be acquired. So we cannot treat that the suit schedule properties were the joint family properties of Ramappa and Lakshmanna. We can conclude that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Ramappa and
Lakshmanna. He further contended that plaintiff as PW.1 in her cross-examination page No.1 deposed as
“I have seen Ramappa my grandfather. He died in the year 1990. My
grandmother died subsequent to him. But I cannot say exact year. I obtained
Ex.A1 from Sub-registrar‟s office. I gone through the contents of Ex.A1. Suit
schedule properties are self acquired properties of my grandfather. He acquired
the properties along with his younger brother and they partitioned the properties. In Ex.A1 document it is recited that the properties are self acquired properties of
Lakshmanna and Ramanna and both of them got divided their joint properties. In
Ex.A1 it is not mentioned that the properties are joint family properties. Till the
death of my grandfather all the schedule properties were in his custody.
……….After the death of my grandfather the property devolved on D1 to D3 and
Kullayappa. Sometime after the death of my grandfather separate pas books were
issued to D1 to D3. My father got separate extents. D2 and D3 were also given
separate extents. ……… My father and D2 has sold some portion of the property.
My father performed my marriage in the year 1983 and he is also looking after the
family maintenance. ……… My father and his brothers are living separately since
my birth. My uncles have got separate houses. We have no right in the house of
property of my uncles. My father also has no right in their houses. The house
properties possessed by my father are his self acquired property. One house is
inherited from his father. My father and his brothers are enjoying their share
separately in the suit land, but there is no written document. Since there is no registered document I filed suit against them also. ….. the share of my father is in his possession.”
14. By reading the above said evidence of PW.1, the learned counsel for the defendants contended that as the marriage of plaintiff was performed in 1983, she is not entitled for the benefits under Section 29(a) of Act 13 of 1986 of State of
Andhra Pradesh under which the Hindu Succession Act was amended by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 24.9.1985. This benefit is not applicable to a daughter married prior to 24.9.1985. So the plaintiff is banking her
OS 95/2011 13
claim in the suit on the amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 as stated above. He submitted that on and from the commencement of Hindu
Succession Act only the daughter is entitled to claim a coparcenery right under the said amended Section 6. The said amendment came into force from 20.12.2004.
Prior to that the plaintiff who is the daughter of A1 has no right to claim to claim right in the coparcenery property even if we take that that the plaint schedule properties are the coparcenery properties of defendant Nos.1 to 8. He further submitted that as per the evidence of PW.1, Ramappa the paternal grandfather of plaintiff died in the year 1990 leaving behind his wife and four sons i.e. D1 to D3 and Sreeramulu.
15. Section 4 of Hindu Succession Act reads as “Overriding effect of Act— (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,--
(a) Any text, rule, or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act;
(b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act
shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the
provisions contained in this Act;
(c) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any law for the time being in force providing for the prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings or for the fixation of ceilings or for the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of such holdings.
It is seen from Section 4 of Hindu Succession Act that the same limitation contained in Section 4(1)(a) is contained in Section 4(1)(b) as well. From this it is possible to conclude that the statute has no intention what so ever of abrogating the principles of Hindu Law in toto or in a comprehensive manner and it intends only to affect those principles to the extent to which provision had been made in the Act which abrogates or strikes a discordant note to the principles of the established Hindu Mitakshara law. When we look at Section 6 of the Act, we see that the main body of the section in specific terms refers to the principles of survivorship obtained in the Hindu law. But to this section engrafted a provision
OS 95/2011 14
which clearly makes an inroad into the principle of survivorship in certain circumstances.
16. The un-amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as follows:
6. Devolution of interest of coparcenary property:
When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the
time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in
the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the
coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act:
Provided that, if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative
specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara
coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as
the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship.
Explanation 1: For the purpose of this section, the interest of a Hindu
Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would
have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place
immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim
partition or not.
Explanation 2: Nothing contained in the proviso to this section shall be
construed as enabling a person who has separated himself from the coparcenary
before the death of the deceased or any of his heirs to claim on intestacy a share
in the interest referred to therein.
As per Section 6, the principles of old Hindu Law of survivorship are preserved but under the proviso to the Act if a male Hindu dies leaving behind a female relative specified in Class I of Schedule or a male relative claiming through such female specified in that Class, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under Hindu Succession Act and not by survivorship.
17. In this case, Ramappa died in the year 1990 leaving behind his wife who is one of the Class I heirs of Ramappa. So, on the date of death of Ramappa, succession opens. Then the property will devolve on the heirs of Ramappa as per rules prescribed under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act.
18. Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act reads as follows:
“8. General rules of succession in the case of males:
The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the
provisions of this Chapter—
OS 95/2011 15
(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the schedule;
(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the schedule ;
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and
(d) lastly if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.”
19. So as per Section 8(a) of the Act when Class I heirs are there, the property cannot be succeeded by class II or other relatives. But as defendant No.1 is alive, the plaintiff cannot claim any right in the property by way of succession from her paternal grandfather. He submitted that on the date of death of Ramappa the properties have to be divided into 5 shares i.e. among wife and four sons of
Ramappa. The share of Sreeramaulu, fourth son of Ramappa, will be taken by his
LRs. He submitted that when a male or female gets the property under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, it will be treated that it is their separate property and not coparcenary property of himself and others. In support of his contention he cited the following decisions:
(1) AIR 1975 Madras 1 in between The Additional Commissioner of Income
Tax, Madras-1, vs. P.L. Karuppan Chettiar wherein their Lordships in para No.6 of the decision held as
“ By applying Sec.8, it had to be concluded that the father alone, namely K
in this case would inherit the property to the exclusion of the grandson. This
being the effect of the statutory provision, no interest would accrue to the
grandson in the property which belonged to P. Even assuming P‟s property was
ancestral property in the hands of K, still because of the effect of the statute, K‟s
son would not have an interest in the property. This was directly derogatory of
the law established according to the principles of the Hindu Law and this provision in the statute must prevail in view of the unequivocal expression of the intention in the statute itself which said that to the extent to which provisions had been made in the statute, those provisions should override the established provisions in the text of Hindu Law.” (2) Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in AIR 1986 SC 1753 in between Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Kanpur etc vs. Chander Sen etc., approved the above cited decision of Madras High Court. In para Nos.20 to 23 their
Lordships held as
OS 95/2011 16
“20. In view of the Preamble to the Act i.e. that to modify where necessary
and to codify the law, in our opinion it is not possible when Schedule indicates
heirs in Class I and only includes son and does not include son‟s son but does
include son of a predeceased son, to say that when son inherits the property in the
situation contemplated by S.8 he takes it as karta of his own undivided family.
The Gujarat High Court‟s view noted above, if accepted, would mean that though
the son of a predeceased son and not the son of a son who is intended to be
excluded under S.8 to inherit, the latter would by applying the old Hindu law get a
right by birth of the said property contrary to the scheme outlined in S.8.
Furthermore as noted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court the Act makes it clear by
S.4 that one should look to the Act in case of doubt and not to the pre-existing
Hindu law. It would be difficult to hold today the property which devolved on a
Hindu under S.8 of the Hindu Succession Act would be HUF property in his hand
vis-avis his own son; that would amount to creating two classes among the heirs
mentioned in Class I, the male heirs in whose hands it will be joint Hindu family property and vis-à-vis son and female heirs with respect to whom no such concept
could be applied or contemplated. It may be mentioned that heirs in Class I of
Schedule under S.8 of the Act included widow, mother, daughter of predeceased
son etc.
21. Before we conclude we may state that we have noted the observations
of Mulla‟s Commentary on Hindu Law, 15 th Edn. Dealing with S.6 of the Hindu
Succession Act at page 924-26 as well as Mayne‟s on Hindu Law, 12 th Edition,
pages 918-19.
22. The express words of S.8 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be ignored and must prevail. The Preamble to the Act reiterates that the Act is, inter
alia, to „amend‟ the law, with that background the express language which
excludes son‟s son but included son of a predeceased son cannot be ignored.
23. In the aforesaid light the views expressed by the Allahabad HighCourt,
the Madras High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High
Court, appear to us to be correct. With respect we are unable to agree with the
views of the Gujarat High Court noted hereinbefore.” (3) 1995(1) ALD 456 AP HC in between Musini Leela Prasad vs. Musini
Bhavani and others wherein their Lordships relied on the above cited decision of
Supreme Court and in para No.12 their Lordships cited the above decision and in para No.13 their Lordships held as
“13. From the above passage it is clear that the ancestral property
inherited by the son on the death of his father shall be treated as his separate property and a son born to him is not entitled to a share by birth. At this stage I
may point out that before the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the
share in the ancestral property inherited by the son on the death of his father is treated as ancestral property in the hands of his son and therefore, the son got a
share by birth. However, according to the judgment of the Supreme Court,
referred to above, by virtue of the amendment introduced in 1956 Act and also by virtue of the fact that the intention of 1956 Act is to modify the then existing
OS 95/2011 17
Hindu law. It was held that a share in the joint family properties inherited by the son on the death of his father should be treated as separate property. The learned
Judges pointed out that it would be difficult to hold today that the property which
devolved on a Hindu under S.8 of the Hindu Succession Act would be HUF in his
hand vis-avis his own son; that would amount to creating two classes among the
heirs mentioned in Class I, the male heirs in whose hands it will be joint Hindu
family property and vis-à-vis son and female heirs with respect to whom no such
concept could be applied or contemplated.”
20. In this case, the plaintiff as PW.1 herself admitted that the suit schedule properties are acquired by Ramappa and his brother Lakshmanna and so they are self acquired by them. In the partition the suit schedule properties fell to the share of Ramappa. In view of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was prior to 20.12.2004, as Ramappa died leaving behind a female heir i.e. his wife the succession under Hindu Succession Act opens as per proviso to unamended
Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act and the heirs of Ramappa will succeed to the property under Section 8(a) of Hindu Succession Act and their respective shares cannot be treated as coparcenary property, but have to be treated as their separate properties in view of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the defendants.
After the death of the wife of Ramanna, her share devolved on her four sons. Then the four sons will get each 1/4th share. As per the admitted case of PW.1, defendant No.1 and his brothers partitioned the properties long back and they are in possession of their respective shares. As per PW.1 after sometime after the death of their grandfather separate pass books were issued to D1 to D3. Her father got separate extents and D2 and D3 were also given separate extents. So under her eyes D1 and his brothers partitioned the properties but she kept quiet for all these days. Thus much water flowed under the bridge. Now it cannot be reversed.
He prayed for dismissal of the suit.
21. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for defendants, as defendant
No.1 got the property under Section 8(1) read with under unamended Section 6 of
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which was prior to 20.12.2004 it has to be treated that it is his separate property. During the life time of defendant No.1 plaintiff cannot claim partition of the properties that fell to the share of defendant No.1 or in the
OS 95/2011 18
suit schedule properties. Thus all these issues are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3.
22. Issue No.4:
In view of the decisions arrived in issue Nos.1 to 3, this suit is liable to be dismissed with costs of defendant Nos.1 to 4, 9 to 14.
23. In the result, this suit is dismissed with costs of defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 9 to 14.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced
by me in open Court, on this the 3rd day of June, 2013
Judge, Family Court,
(FAC) III Addl District Judge (FTC), Anantapur
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:
PW.1 : R. Uma Maheswari DW.1 : A. Jayaraman
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF
Ex.A1 : Certified copy of partition deed dated 8.5.1954 Ex.A2 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 29.6.2011 Ex.A3 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 20.10.1944
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS
-Nil-
III ADJ
CMA 3/2013 1
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) :
ANANTAPURAM
PRESENT: Sri B. Sivanagi Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M.,
Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge
(FAC) III Additional District Judge (FTC)
Monday, the 3 rd day of June, 2013
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3/2013
Between:
Pathon Peer Basha S/o Late P. Hasan Saheb, Mouzen and Naib Khazi, D.No.1-1-12, Near Jamiya Mosque, Uravakonda,
Anantapur District .. Appellant/
Petitioner/Plaintiff
And
1. Mulla Masthan S/o Late Zatti Saheb, Watch Repairer, D.No.6-1-13, Near Khila Mosque, Uravakonda, Anantapur Dist
2. Anantapur Jaffer Saheb S/o Late Murtuza, Retd. Teacher, D.No.10-5-160, Ranga Street, Uravakonda, Anantapur Dist
3. Kattubadi Mahaboob Saheb @ Study Mabu S/o K. Mabu Saheb, Stand Bus Loader, D.No.6-2-43, Uravakonda,
Anantapur Dist .. Respondents/
Respondents/ Defendants
On appeal against the order and decree dated 16.11.2012 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda in IA No.61/2012 in OS No.32/2012
Between:
Pathon Peer Basha .. Petitioner/Plaintiff
And
1. Mulla Masthan
2. Anantapur Jaffer Saheb
3. Kattubadi Mahaoob Saheb .. Respondents/Defendants
A fixed Court fee of Rs.3/- is paid under Sec.11 Art. 3(a) of A.C.F. and S.V. Act of 1956.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal coming on 29.4.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R. Abdul Rahiman, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri N. Zubair, Advocate for respondents and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material placed on record, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:
(i) That the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and the same is hereby allowed;
(ii) That the statusquo order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda in order dated 16.11.2012 in IA No.61 of 2012 in OS No.32 of 2012 be and the same is hereby set aside;
CMA 3/2013 2
(iii) That the IA No.61 of 2012 in OS No.32 of 2012 on the file of Junior Civil
Judge, Uravakonda be and is hereby allowed and the defendants/respondent Nos.1
to 3 be and are hereby restrained from interfering with the duties of the plaintiff/petitioner as naib kazi of Uravakonda town, Anantapur District during the pendency of the suit or till further orders and
(iv) That there be no order as to costs.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE COURT, ON THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2013
Judge, Family Court
(FAC) III Addl District Judge (FTC), Anantapuram
Table of Costs
Appellant Respondents Stamp on vakalat Rs.2-00 Rs.2-00 Stamp on appeal Rs.3-00 - Stamp on process - - Stamp on petition - - Typing charges - - Advocate fee (Senior) - Advocate fee (Junior) -
Total: Rs.5-00 Rs.2-00
III ADJ (FTC),
Anantapuram
CMA 3/2013 3
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) :
ANANTAPUR
PRESENT: Sri B. Sivanagi Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M.,
Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge
(FAC) III Additional District Judge (FTC)
Monday, the 3 rd day of June, 2013
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3/2013
Between:
Pathon Peer Basha .. Appellant/
Petitioner/Plaintiff
And
Mulla Masthan and others .. Respondents/
Respondents/ Defendants
On appeal against the order and decree dated 16.11.2012 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda in IA No.61/2012 in OS No.32/2012
Between:
Pathon Peer Basha .. Petitioner/Plaintiff
And
Mulla Masthan and others .. Respondents/Defendants
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal coming on 29.4.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R. Abdul Rahiman, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri N. Zubair, Advocate for respondents and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material placed on record, this Court passed the following:
O R D E R
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the order and decree dated 16.11.2012 passed by the Junior Civil Judge,
Uravakonda in IA No.61 of 2012 in OS No.32 of 2012.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit. The parties will be herein after referred as they are arrayed in the suit for the sake of convenience.
3. The factual matrix of this case is as follows:
The plaintiff filed this suit against defendant Nos.1 to 3 alleging that he is working as Mouzan of Uravakonda Jamiya Mosque since one year and he was appointed as Naib Kazi (Assistant Kazi) by the Government registered Kazi of
Uravakonda under appointment letter Ex.A1 dated 12.7.2011 to perform specific duties like to perform the cremations of Muslims and also to do the slathering works
CMA 3/2013 4
in Uravakonda town as per Muslim rites and customs and he was doing his duties from the date of his appointment without any intervention. The defendants, having no manner of right, are trying to interfere with his duties and so he filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants and IA No.61 of 2012 for temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit for restraining the defendants from interfering with his duties. Defendants contested the IA by filing counter wherein they denied all the allegations of the petition. As per them, the suit is not maintainable in civil Court as the suit has to be filed before the Wakf Tribunal at
Hyderabad. The suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as Wakf Board is not added as a party. They denied the allegation of the plaintiff that he is working as Mouzan of Jamia Mosque of Uravakonda from January, 2012 and he is appointed as Naib Kazi by Government Kazi to perform specific duties like cremation of
Muslims and also to do slathering works in Uravakonda. They submitted that the appointment letter issued by Kazi of Uravakonda is only for the purpose of this suit.
They submitted that one A. Rahamathulla Sahib who is a muthvalli of Uravakaonda
Jamia Mosque entered into an agreement on behalf of the plaintiff on 28.1.2012 with six members of Mullahs and other members of the Mosque that the plaintiff was appointed as a Mullah of Uravakonda town and his duties are slathering (zuba) working and to perform Muslim cremations. While so, out of the income got by the plaintiff on the works he has to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to Qila Masjid, which is situated in Mullah’s Street, Uravakonda, as said Masjid has no source of income.
They filed xerox copy of the agreement and requested the Court to read the same as part and parcel of the counter. As per them, the original agreement is in the custody of the Musthwalli of Jamiya mosque, Uravakonda. They submitted that thereafter the petitioner did not pay Rs.2,000/- per month to Qila Masjeed. When they demanded for payment of Rs.2,000/-, petitioner created appointment letter
Ex.A1 with the help of Uravakonda Kazi and filed this petition and suit. They further submitted that before appointment of the petitioner as mullah, slathering works were done by one Mouzan by name Shaiksha Vali and he was paying
Rs.800/- per month to Qila Masjeed. After that Macca Masjeed Mouzan Shaik
Ahamed was doing slathering works and paid Rs.800/- to Qila Masjeed. They
CMA 3/2013 5
denied the other allegations of the petition. They prayed for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
4. For the limited purpose of the petition, the plaintiff marked Ex.A1 appointment letter dated 12.7.2011 of Naib Kazi and Ex.A2 G.O.Ms.No.116.
Defendants have not marked any documents on their behalf.
5. After hearing the counsel of both parties learned Magistrate framed a point for consideration as “Whether the petitioner is entitled for interim injunction as prayed for or not?” and after considering the material placed before the Court the
Junior civil Judge in para Nos.6 to 9 of the impugned order stated as “6. Perused the material on record, the main dispute arises as admitted by respondent/defendant that as per agreement dated 28.1.2012 (vadambadika Qararnama) Muthavalli of Uravakonda by name one A. Rahamthulla Saib entered agreement on behalf of petitioner with the 6 members of Mullahs and one members of mosque that the petitioner was appointed as a Mouzan/Mullah for Uravakonda thalugua and his duties are done the slathering (zuba) works and perform the Muslim cremation, the petitioner is getting income from that works and the petitioner has to pay Rs.2000-00 per month to Qila Masjeed whichis situated in Mullah Street, Uravakonda because the Qilla masjeed has no income source, the petitioner did not pay monthly Rs.2,000/- then the respondent asked about that monthly payment, the petitioner created a Naib Kazi, appointed letter with the help of the Uravakonda Kazi. The petitioner was appointed in Naib Kazi by Kazi as per Ex.A1 dated 12.7.2011 and the Government appoint the Kazi by name T.K. Abdul Hari Sahib, S/o Abdul Hameed Saheb dated 29.1.1992 as per GO.M.s.no.116 as Ex.A2, but the respondent/defendant contended the said Kazi entered into agreement on 28.1.2012 after appointment of Naib Kazi/petitioner to prove that there is agreement between A. Rahamthulla who is Muttavalli the respondent filed Xerox copy of agreement., and that has to be decided during the course of trial, the respondent/defendant not denying the appointment of petitioner they raise object when the petitioner fails to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to Qila masjeed.
7. The petitioner to prove prima-facie, he filed Exs.A1 and A2, and the respondent is not accepting that Kazi had no power to appoint Naib Kazi, but the petitioner counsel argued that as per section 3 of the Kazi Act 1880,
3. Naib Kazis: Any Kazi appointed under this Act may appoint one or
more persons as his naib or naibs to act in his place in all or any of the
matters appertaining to his office throughout the whole or in any portion of
the local area for which he is appointed and may suspend or remove any
naib so appointed.
8. The respondent is also admitting that due to old age and ill health he cannot do his work, and slathering work is the duty of Kazi, if it so, the petitioner appointment of Naib Kazi is not illegal. Further the respondent raises the objection that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as per Sec.85 Wakf Act 1995.
CMA 3/2013 6
Sec.85 Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts: No suit or other legal
proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of any dispute,
question or other matter relating to any Wakf, Wakf property or other
matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a
Tribunal.
8. The petitioner in rebuttal contented that the Wakf Act deals with regard to property disputes relating to Walk property.
As per Section 3(r) Wakf means the permanent dedication by a person
professing Islam, or any movable or immovable property for any purpose
recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and includes:
(i) A wakf by user but such Wakf shall not cease to be a Wakf by reason only of the user having ceased irrespective of the period of such cesser;
(ii) ―grants‖, including mashrut-ul-khidmat for any purpose recognized
by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and
(iii) A Walkf-al-alaulad to the extent to which the property is dedicated for any purpose recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable.
As per Section 85, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to try any suit or legal
proceedings in respect of any dispute relating to any wakf. And in para No.9 stated as
9. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and Status Quo is ordered. Both parties are directed to maintain statusquo till the disposal of the main suit.
Thus the Junior Civil Judge without assigning any reasons partly allowed the petition and ordered statusquo directing both the parties to maintain statusquo till the disposal of the suit.
6. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the plaintiff filed this Civil
Miscellaneous Petition mainly on the following grounds:
(1) The order of the trial Court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
(2) The trial Court erred in not allowing the petition, but ordered statusquo till the disposal of the main suit even after hearing both sides and even though the defendants themselves admitted in their counter and written statement that they are interested in recovering Rs.2,000/- and they never disturbed the duties of the plaintiff.
7. Arguments of both parties counsel are heard.
CMA 3/2013 7
8. Now the point for consideration is: whether the plaintiff is having right to perform the duties of Naib Kazi at Uravakonda?
9. As per Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 State Government has power to appoint one or more fit persons to be kazis for such local area.
10. Plaintiff is contending that under Ex.A2 G.O.Ms.No.116 Revenue (Wakf)
Department dated 29.1.1992 Government has appointed one Hafiz Abdul Hai Saheb as kazi for Uravakonda town with effect from the date of assuming his charge.
Defendants are not denying the said fact.
11. As per Section 3 of Kazis Act, 1880 any Kazi appointed under this Act may appoint one or more persons as his naib (assistant) or naibs to act in his place in all or any of the matters pertaining to his office throughout the whole or in any portion of the local area for which he is appointed and may suspend or remove any naib so appointed. In the statement of Objects and Reasons of The Kazis Act, 1980 it is stated as “The duties of the Kazi under these Regulations comprised some or all of the following, viz., -- (1) preparing and attesting deeds of transfer and other law-papers; (2) celebrating marriages and presiding at divorces; (3) performing various rites and ceremonies; (4) superintending the sale of distrained property and paying charitable and other pensions and allowances.
In the course of subsequent legislation, the first and last of the above duties devolved on officers specially appointed for the purpose, and there remained nothing to be performed by the Kazi but the second and third, which were purely ceremonial. Under these circumstances it appeared no longer necessary that the
Government should appoint these officers. Accordingly, in 1864, Act 11 of that year, all the regulations relating to the appointment of Kazis by Government and the duties to be discharged by them were repealed, but in order that it might be clear that no interference with the ceremonial functions of these officers was intended, a section was added to that Act as follows:- “Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed so as to prevent a Kazi-ul-
Kuzaat or other Kazi from performing, when required to do so any duties or
CMA 3/2013 8
ceremonies prescribed by the Muhammadan law”. (see Section 2 of Act 11 of 1864)
Certain of his duties having thus survived the passing of Act 11 of 1864, that
Kazi is still a functionary of considerable importance in the Muhammadan community. What was originally in some sense an accidental adjunct of his judicial office has become his principal and only duty and in some parts of the country at least, the presence of a Kazi at certain rites and ceremonies appears now to be considered by Muhammadans essential from their point of view.
12. So the duties of kazis are celebrating marriages and performing various rites and ceremonies. But his presence at the marriage or rite or ceremony is not compulsory. As already stated one Hafiz Abdul Hai Saheb was appointed as kazi by the Government under Kazis Act, 1880 under Ex.A2. The plaintiff is claiming that said Hafiz Abdul Hai Saheb appointed him as Naib Kazi (Assistant kazi) under Ex.A1
dated 12.7.2011. Under Ex.A1 Hafiz Abdul Hai Saheb stated that the plaintiff was
working as Naib kazi in Jamia Mosque, Uravakonda. In this the kazi authorized the petitioner to perform death ceremonies and slathering sheep (juba). The plaintiff is contending that from the date of Ex.A1 he is performing his duties as Naib Kazi and the defendants are not allowing him to do his duties and so he filed the suit for permanent injunction and this petition for temporary injunction.
13. Defendants in their counter denied the allegations of the petition but contended that there is Qila Masjid in Mullah’s Street, Uravakonda which has no source of income and so one Shaikshavali and after him Macca Masjeed Muzan
Shaik Ahamed were paying Rs.800/- p.m. from out of the income of slathering work. They alleged that one A. Rahamathulla Sahib who is mutawalli of
Uravakonda Jamia mosque entered into an agreement dated 28.1.2012 on behalf of the plaintiff with the six members of Mullahs and other members of the mosque that the plaintiff was appointed as mouzan and he has to do slathering works and to perform the Muslim cremations and out of the amount which he gets from those works he has to pay Rs.2000/- per month to Qila Masjid of Uravakonda. As the plaintiff did not pay the agreed amount they questioned him for payment of the amount. Then the plaintiff obtained Ex.A1 from Kazi and then filed the suit and this
CMA 3/2013 9
petition. They also submitted that the suit is not maintainable in view of constitution of Wakf Tribunal.
14. Wakf is defined under Section 3 (l) of the Wakf Laws, 1954 as – „wakf‟
means the permanent dedication by a person professing Islam [“or any other
person‟ [of any moveable or immoveable property for any purpose recognized by
the Muslim Law as pious, religious or charitable and includes-
(i) a wakf by user [but such wakf shall not cease to be a wakf by reason only of the „user having creased irrespective of the period of such cesser”].
(ii) grants (including mashrut-ul-khidmaat) [muafiekhairati, qazi services,
madadmash‟ for any purpose recognized by the Muslim Law as pious, religion or
charitable and]
(iii) a wakf-alal-aulad
Provided that in the case of a dedication by a person not professing Islam,
the Wakf shall be void if, on the death of such person, any objection to such
dedication is raised by one or more of his legal representatives.
(la) „Wakf Commissioner‟ means the Wakf Commissioner appointed under
sub-section(1) of Section 21.
Section 6 deals with disputes regarding Wakfs which reads as follows:
6. Disputes regarding wakfs:-
(1) If any question arises [whether a particular property specified as wakf
property in a list of a wakfs published under sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf] the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the Civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:
Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the Civil Court after the
expiry of one year from thedate of the publication of the list of wakfs under sub- section (2) of Section 5.
[Provided further that in the case of the list of wakfs relating to any part of
the State and published or purporting to have published before the
commencement of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1969 (38 of 1969), such suit may
be entertained by the Civil Court within the period of one year from such
commencement]
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section and Section 6-A, the
expression ―any person interested therein‖, occurring in sub-section (1) of this section and in sub-section (1) of Section 6-A, shall, in relation to any property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published, under sub-section (2) of
Section 5, after the commencement of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall
include also every person who, though not interested in the wakf concerned, is
interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been
afforded to represent his case by notice served on him in that behalf during the course of the relevant inquiry under Section 4]
CMA 3/2013 10
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no proceeding
under this Act in respect of any wakf shall be stayed by reason only of the
pendency of any such suit or of any appeal or other proceeding arising out of suit.
(3) The Survey Commissioner shall not be made a party to any suit under
sub-section (1) and no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against
him in respect of anything which is in goodfaith done or intended to be done in
pursuance of this Act or of any rule thereunder.
(4) The list of wakfs published under sub-section (2) of Section 5 shall,
unless it is modified in pursuance of a decision of the Civil Court under sub-section (1), be final and conclusive.
[(5) On and from the commencement of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984
in a State, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted or commenced in a civil court in that State in relation to any question referred to in sub-section (1)]
Under Section 55 of the Act the State Government is empowered to appoint
Tribunals for determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a
Walkf or Wakf property.
As per Section 55 (C) of the Act, no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property or other matter which is required by, or under, this Act to be determined by a Tribunal.
Section 55-E of the Act reads as :
―(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
being, in force no suit, appeal or other legal proceeding for the enforcement of any right on behalf of any wakf which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall be instituted or commenced or heard, tried or decided
by any court after the commencement of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984, or
where any such suit, appeal or other legal proceeding had been instituted or
commenced before such commencement, no such suit, appeal or other legal
proceeding shall be continued, heard, tried or decided by any court after such
commencement unless such wakf has been registered, after such commencement,
in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply, as for as may be, to the
claim for set-off or any other claim made on behalf of any wakf which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
So unless the wakf is registered in accordance with the provision of the Act no legal proceedings shall be instituted in the Tribunal.
Section 25 of the Act deals with registration of Wakfs which reads as
(1) Every wakf whether created before or after the commencement of this
Act shall be registered at the office of the Wakf Commissioner.
CMA 3/2013 11
(2) Application for registration shall be made by the mutawalli:-
Provided that such applications may be made by the wakf or descendants or
beneficiary of the wakf or any Muslim belonging to the sect to which the wakf
belongs.
(3) An application for registration shall be made in such form and manner
and at such place as the Wakf Commissioner may prescribe and shall contain the
following particulars, so far as possible—
(a) a description of the wakf properties sufficient for the identification thereof;
(b) the gross annual income from such properties;
(c) the amount of land revenue and cesses, and of all rates and taxes annually payable in respect of the wakf properties;
(d) an estimate of the expenses annually incurred in the realisation of the income of the wakf properties;
(e) the amount set apart under the wakf for –
(i) the salary of the mutawalli and allowances to individuals;
(ii) purely religious purposes;
(iii) charitable purposes; and
(iv) any other purposes;
(f) any other particulars prescribed by the Wakf Commissioner.
(4) Every such application shall be accompanied by a copy of the wakf deed
or if no such deed has been executed or a copy thereof cannot be obtained, shall contain full particulars as far as they are known to the applicant, of the origin, nature and objects of the wakf.
(5) Every application made under sub-section (2) shall be signed and
verified by the applicant in the manner provided in the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908 (5 of 1908) for the signing and verification of pleadings.
(6) The Wakf Commissioner may require the applicant to supply any further
particulars or information that he may consider necessary.
(7) On receipt of an application for registration, the Board may, before the
registration of the wakf, make such inquiries as he thinks fit in respect of the genuineness and validity of the application and the correctness of any particulars
therein and when the application is made by any person other than the person
administering the wakf property, the Wakf Commissioner shall, before registering
the wakf, given notice of the application to the person administering the wakf
property and shall hear him if he desires to be heard.
(8) In the case of wakfs created before the commencement of this Act,
every application for registration shall be made, within three months from such
commencement and in the case of Wakfs created after such commencement,
within three months from the date of the creation of the wakf.
[―(9) Every wakf registered under this section before the commencement of
the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 shall be deemed to have been registered on
such commencement, at the office of the Wakf Commissioner.
(10) Every application for registration under this section pending
immediately before the commencement of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984
before the Board shall, on such commencement, stand transferred to the Wakf
CMA 3/2013 12
Commissioner and the Wakf Commissioner shall deal with such application as if it were an application pending before him‖]
15. The defendants are not stating that the agreement of the persons to pay
Rs.800/- or any amount to the mosque was registered in the register of wakfs. It seems it is purely a private agreement between the Mullahs and other members of the mosque. As per defendants, Mullahs had oral agreement with Shaikvali and after him Shaik Ahamed to pay Rs.800/- per month to the Qila Masjeed from the income of slathering works. As per them, one A. Rahamathulla Sahib who is a muthavalli of Uravakonda Jamiya mosque entered in to an agreement on behalf of the plaintiff on 28.1.2012 with the six members of the mullahs and other members of the mosque that the plaintiff was appointed as mouzan and he has to do slathering works and to perform the Muslim cremations and out of the amount, which he gets from those works, he has to pay Rs.2000/- per month to Qila Masjid in Mullahs street, Uravakonda as the said masjid has no source of income. The said document is not marked as exhibit by the defendants. Admittedly the plaintiff is not a signatory of the agreement. So the said agreement is not binding on the plaintiff. As per the admitted case of the defendants, the plaintiff was appointed as naib kazi of Uravakonda. So the defendants cannot restrain the plaintiff from doing his lawful duties. If they are having any right under the above said agreement
dated 28.1.2012, they can institute a suit for recovery of the amount. But they
cannot take the law in to their hands to prevent the plaintiff in doing his lawful duties. As the Wakf Board or the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the legal proceedings, this suit is not barred by constitution of Wakf Tribunal.
16. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also cited a decision in 2011(1) ALD116 (DB) in between Qazi Syed Abdullah Mohammadi and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another wherein their Lordships held that under the provisions of the Act (Kazis
Act, 1880) no power is conferred either on State Government or even in A.P. Wakf
Board to deal with, fix or meddle with or otherwise the fee structure in respect of duties or functions of Kazis or Naib Kazis. He submitted that this court has no right to fix the fees. Then the defendants have no right to direct the plaintiff to pay
Rs.2,000/- per month to Qila masjid from out of the income which he gets from
CMA 3/2013 13
doing his duties. He prayed for allowing the appeal and IA and to grant temporary injunction against the respondents/defendants.
17. Learned counsel for the defendants contended that the civil Court has no jurisdiction.
18. From the above material it is clear that the plaintiff is appointed as Naib kazi to do the duties like officiating the religious ceremonies, cremations and slathering works. The defendants are not entitled to claim any amount much less Rs.2,000/- per month from the plaintiff under the agreement under which they are claiming.
As the plaintiff is not a party to that agreement, they cannot demand the petitioner/plaintiff to pay Rs.2,000/- per month for allowing him to do his duties.
Even if they are having any such right they can approach the civil Court to recover the amount for which they are entitled but they cannot take law into their own hands. In view of this it is clear that the learned Junior Civil Judge has not properly appreciated the law and facts and thus there is miscarriage of justice, which has to be corrected in this appeal. As the defendants have no right to prevent the plaintiff from doing his duties, he is entitled to claim temporary injunction in the IA and so this appeal has to be allowed and consequently IA No.61 of 2012 in OS No.32 of 2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda has to be allowed.
19. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the statusquo order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda in order dated 16.11.2012 in IA No.61 of 2012 in OS No.32 of 2012 is set aside and IA No.61 of 2012 in OS No.32 of 2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda is allowed and the defendants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 are restrained from interfering with the duties of the plaintiff/petitioner as naib kazi of Uravakonda town, Anantapur District during the pendency of the suit or till further orders.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced
by me in open Court, on this the 3rd day of June, 2013
Judge, Family Court,
(FAC) III Addl District Judge (FTC), Anantapur
OS 114/2010 1
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) :
ANANTAPUR
PRESENT: Sri B. Sivanagi Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M.,
Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge
(FAC) III Additional District Judge (FTC)
Monday, the 3 rd day of June, 2013
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.114/2010
Between:
G. Musalanna S/o G. Pothappa, 76 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal,
Anantapur District .. Plaintiff
And
1. G. Pothappa S/o G. Nadipanna, 61 yrs, Retd. Employee, D.No.19-6-32., STV Nagar, Tirupati.
2. G. Sreedhar S/o Pothappa, 32 yrs, D.No.19-6-32, STV Nagar, Tirupati
3. G. Sreekanth S/o Pothappa, 29 yrs, D.No.19-6-32, STV Nagar, Tirupati
4. G. Sreedevi D/o Pothappa, 29 yrs, D.No.19-6-32, STV Nagar, Tirupati
5. G. Sreelatha D/o Pothappa, 24 yrs, D.No.19-6-32, STV Nagar, Tirupati
6. M. Pedarayamma W/o Muttala Yerrappa, 70 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur mandal
7. Y. Eswaraiah S/o Yaleti Akkulappa, 38 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
8. Y. Chinna Eswaraiah S/o Yaleti Akkulappa, 35 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
9. Mallobanna S/o Yaleti Akkulappa, 32 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
10. Devaraju S/o Yaleti Akkulappa, 22 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
11. Chinna Rayamma W/o Madanna, 70 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
12. Eswaraiah S/o Madanna, 38 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
13. Kesava S/o Madanna, 22 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur village
14. M. Ramudu S/o Obulesu, 52 yrs, Boya Street, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
15. M. Yellamma W/o M. Malikonda Narasimhulu, 55 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
16. M. Pedda Rajanna S/o M. Malikonda Narasimhulu, 38 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
17. M. Chinna Rajanna S/o M. Malikonda Narasimhulu, 36 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
18. M. Mallobanna S/o M. Malikonda Narasimhulu, 34 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
19. M. Chinna Mallobanna S/o M. Malikonda Narasimhulu, 32 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
20. M. Ramanji S/o M. Malikonda Narasimhulu, 30 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
21. Kummara Chinna Anjineyulu S/o Obulanna, 37 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
22. Y. Venkatesulu S/o Kappala Naganna, 36 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
OS 114/2010 2
23. Y. Guntapalli Nagalakshmi W/o Boggula Pothanna, 26 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
24. K. Nallappa S/o K. Nallappa, 40 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
25. K. Ambanna S/o K. Nallappa, 35 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
26. P. Siddanna S/o P. Pothappa, 70 yrs, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
27. P. Yellappa S/o Siddanna, 24 yrs Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
28. J. Padmavathi W/o Jogula Pullanna, 35 yrs, Kuruba Street, Sanapa village, Atmakur Mandal
.. Defendants
Suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s half share in the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.
Plaint presented on 22.12.2010
Plaint filed on 31.12.2010
Cause of action for the suit arose on when Nadipanna went out of the family under a partition deed dated 11.1.1945, subsequently when Balanna also went out of the family, on 16.2.1960 when G. Pothappa executed a registered gift deed conveying right in favour of the plaintiff and Nadipanna, the plaintiff and Nadipanna had enjoyed the property jointly each having joint share, Nadipanna died leaving behind the 1st defendant as his heir, when the alienations are made in respect of the plaint schedule properties, when the 1st defendant and his family members started to act adverse to the interest of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff demanded for partition and separate possession of his half share in the plaint schedule properties, when he has filed a pre-litigation case before Legal Services Authority, when the defendants 1 to 5 or other defendants have not come forward for an amicable settlement at Sanapa village, where the properties were situated, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
Value of the property for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Market value of the property is Rs.45,05,566-00 Plaintiff’s half share is Rs.22,52,783-00 3/4th of it is Rs.16,89,587-25
And a fixed Court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.C.F. and S.V. Act.
This suit coming on 24.4.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.R.K. Mohan, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.L.N. Prasad, Advocate for defendant Nos.1,2,4, Sri K. Girish, Advocate for defendant Nos.7 to 9, 12 to 17, 19 to 21 and 23, defendant Nos.3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 18, 22, 24 to 28 remained ex parte and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material placed on record, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:
(i) That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs of defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 7 to 9, 12 to 17, 19 to 21 and 23 and
(ii) That the plaintiff do pay defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 a sum of Rs.25,032/-, defendant Nos.7 to 9, 12 to 17, 19 to 21 and 23 a sum of Rs.2/- (FC memo not filed) towards costs of this suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.25,502/-.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE COURT, ON THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2013
Judge, Family Court,
(FAC) III Addl District Judge (FTC), Anantapur
OS 114/2010 3
Table of Costs
Plaintiff D1, D2 & D4 D7 to D9, D12 to 17, 19 to 21 and 23 Stamp on vakalat Rs. 2-00 Rs.2-00 Rs.2-00 Stamp on plaint Rs.200-00 - - Stamp on process Rs.300-00 - - Stamp on petition - Rs.10-00 - Process writing - Rs.15-00 - charges Advocate fee Rs.25,502-00 Rs.25,000-00 -
Total: Rs.25,502-00 Rs.25,032-00 Rs.2-00
(FC memo not filed)
S C H E D U L E
Property situated in the RD and SRD of Anantapuram, within the village limits of Sanapa.
1.Govt. Dry; Sy.No.127-1; Ac.4.88 cents; Full; Value Rs.2,53,760-00 Bounded by : East- Kapu street; West-Garden of Chinna Rajappa; North- Land of Venkatappa; South-Land in Sy.No.127-2;
2.Govt.Dry; Sy.No.127-2, Ac.8.10 cents; Full; value Rs.4,21,200-00 Bounded by : East-Boya Street; West-Burial ground; North-Garden of Chinna Nagiri; South-Boya Street;
3.Govt. Dry; Sy.No.114; Ac.22.17 cents paiki Ac.11.08 ½ cents; value Rs.5,76,446-00; bounded by: East : Land in the same survey number; West – Land of Chinna Mallireddy; North-Kaluva; South-Hayrick yards;
4.Govt.Dry; Sy.No.69-1; Ac.2.09 cents; Full; Value Rs.1,08,680-00
5.Govt.Dry; Sy.No.69-3; Ac.16.73 cents; Full; Value Rs.8,69,960-00 Items 4 and 5 bounded by : East-Garden of Ummadi Nagireddy; West-Main Road; North-Land of Mangala Subbakka; South-Land of Bhupathi Reddy
6.Govt.Dry; Sy.No.131-2; Ac.3.92 cents; Full; value Rs.2,03,840-00
7.Govt.Dry; Sy.No.131-3; Ac.5.35 cents; Full; Value Rs.2,78,200-00 Items 6 and 7 bounded by : East-Garden of Golla Bojjanna; West-land of Yerra Pothappa; North-Land of Boya Nariganna; South-Rasha;
8.Govt.Dry; Sy.No.131-1; Ac.7.69 cents; Full; Value Rs.2,03,840-00 Bounded by : East-Kunta; West-Land of K. Nagappa; North-Land of K. Nagappa; South – Rastha;
9.Govt.Dry; Sy.No.168; Ac.26.80 cents; Full; Value Rs.13,93,600-00 Bounded by : East-Land of Ramakrishna Reddy; West-Katta kaluva; North- Land of K. Nagireddy; South-rastha.
Judge, Family Court,
(FAC) III Addl District Judge (FTC), Anantapur
OS 114/2010 4
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) :
ANANTAPUR
PRESENT: Sri B. Sivanagi Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M.,
Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge
(FAC) III Additional District Judge (FTC)
Monday, the 3 rd day of June, 2013
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.114/2010
Between:
G. Musalanna .. Plaintiff
And
1. G. Pothappa
2. G. Sreedhar
3. G. Sreekanth
4. G. Sreedevi
5. G. Srreelatha
6. M. Pedarayamma
7. Y. Eswaraiah
8. Y. Chinna Eswaraiah
9. Mallobanna
10. Devaraju
11. Chinna Rayamma
12. Eswaraiah
13. Kesava
14. M. Ramudu
15. M. Yellamma
16. M. Pedda Rajanna
17. M. Chinna Rajanna
18. M. Mallobanna
19. M. Chinna Mallobanna
20. M. Ramanji
21. Kummara Chinna Anjineyulu
22. Y. Venkatesulu
23. Y. Guntapalli Nagalakshmi
24. K. Nallappa
25. K. Ambanna
26. P. Siddanna
27. P. Yellappa
28. J. Padmavathi .. Defendants
This suit coming on 24.4.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.R.K. Mohan, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.L.N. Prasad, Advocate for defendant Nos.1,2,4, Sri K. Girish, Advocate for defendant Nos.7 to 9, 12 to 17, 19 to 21 and 23, defendant Nos.3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 18, 22, 24 to 28 remained ex parte and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material placed on record, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendant Nos.1 to 28 for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit schedule property and for costs.
OS 114/2010 5
2. As per the admitted case, the suit schedule properties and other properties are the ancestral properties of one G. Pothappa and his four sons namely (1) G. Pothappa @ Peddappaiah (2) G. Nadipanna (3) G. Balanna (4) G. Musalanna (plaintiff). The first son Pothappa @ Peddappaiah separated from joint family under a registered partition deed dated 11.1.1945. Another son Balanna also went out of the family in the year 1960. G. Nadipanna got a son i.e. defendant No.1.
Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of defendant No.1. During the lifetime of
G. Pothappa, he had executed a registered gift deed dated 16.2.1960 (Ex.A1 is the registration copy of the same) bequeathing the suit schedule properties and other properties to the plaintiff and Nadipanna, the father of defendant No.1. As per the plaintiff, the original of Ex.A1 is in the custody of Nadipanna, the father defendant
No.1. Said Nadipanna and plaintiff are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. Plaintiff alleged that some of the properties were alienated in favour of third parties. Defendant No.1 was working in police department and he had lot of influence among the officials and had managed to get pattadar pass books and title deed in his name. As per the plaintiff, the revenue records will not extinguish his rights. He continues to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the property along with defendant No.1. He submitted that the alienation made by defendant Nos.1 to 5 and Nadipanna, the father of defendant No.1 will not affect his right and he shall have a joint half right in all the properties. As per him, defendant Nos.6 to 28 are the purchasers of the some of the items of joint family. Plaintiff submitted that after coming to know the adverse acts of defendant No.1, he made several attempts for an amicable settlement and partition and separate possession of his share in the plaint schedule properties. He also instituted a pre litigation case
before District Legal Services Authority, Anantapuram but in vain. Ex.B1 is the
copy of PLC No.349 of 2009 filed by the plaintiff against defendant Nos.1 to 5 and the Tahasildar of Atmakur Mandal wherein he prayed for cancellation of pattadar pass books issued in the name of respondent Nos.1 to 5 therein. As the defendants have not come forward for an amicable settlement, though they have not denied the right of the plaintiff, he filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit schedule properties.
OS 114/2010 6
2. Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 7 to 9, 12 to 17, 19, 20, 21 and 23 appeared through their counsel. Whereas defendant Nos.3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 18, 22, 24 to 28 remained ex parte. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and the same was adopted by
Defendant Nos.2, 4, 7 to 9, 12 to 17, 19, 20, 21 and 23.
3. Defendant No.1 in his written statement admitted the relationship and partition deed dated 11.1.1945 and Ex.A1 gift deed dated 16.2.1960. He submitted that plaintiff got separated from his father Nadipanna in 1963 by laying ridges and living separately. He submitted that on 11.10.1974 the plaintiff gifted Ac.21.57 cents in S.No.283 to Eswaramma, Pedda yellamma, Chinna yellamma, Sidhamma, nagamma, Umapathamma, Suryakanthamma, Ramanjanamma who are the daughters of Balanna (Ex.B9 is the registration copy of the said gift deed). In that document the plaintiff stated that it is owned and possessed by him. Plaintiff sold
Ac.1-00 out of Ac.22.57 cents in Sy.No.283 to Noorjahan under registered sale deed dated 28.1.1971 (Ex.B8 is the registration copy of the same) wherein the plaintiff stated that he is the owner and got full rights over the said land. Plaintiff also sold Ac.4-00 in Sy.no.30-2 under a registered sale deed dated 9.4.1992 to
Perike Yellappa S/o Pothappa. (Ex.B7 is the certified copy of the said sale deed).
Defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff suppressed the above documents. He also submitted that his father filed a declaration before land ceiling authorities in
CC No.1510/75 claiming exclusive possession and enjoyment over an extent of
Ac.81-77 cents and the verification officer submitted his report, Ex.B3. In those proceedings the plaintiff did not raise his little finger to object. On 16.6.1998 his father and plaintiff entered into a family settlement deed Ex.B2 and accordingly both of them enjoyed their respective shares. He also submitted pattadar pass books five in number which were issued in the names of himself and his children.
He filed adangal extract Ex.B6 for fasli 1401 dated 8.4.1992, 1-B extract dated 18.11.2009, Ex.B12 adangal extract for fasli 1419, cist receipts, Exs.B4 and B5, for faslies 1398, 1397, 1395 and 1401. He prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit schedule property and for allotment of half share therein?
OS 114/2010 7
2. Whether the plaintiff and the father of D1 had entered into family settlement deed dated 16.6.1998 and whether D1 got pattadar pass books in his name and in the name of his children and in pursuance of the said settlement deed?
3. Whether the plaintiff has never cultivated the lands allotted to the defendants through their father Nadipanna?
4. To what relief?
5. To prove his case, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.A1.
Defendant No.1 himself examined as DW.1 and one U. Lakshmi Reddy, the attestor of Ex.B2 as DW.2 and marked Exs.B1 to B13.
6. After closure of both parties evidence, arguments of both parties counsel are heard.
7. As per the plaintiff, himself and father of defendant No.1 got half share each in the suit schedule properties which they got under Ex.A1 registered gift deed
dated 16.2.1960 and as defendant Nos.1 to 5 are acting against to the interest of
the plaintiff and as defendant No.1 obtained Ex.B10 and B11 title deeds and pattadar pass books in the name of himself and his children, the plaintiff filed PLC (Ex.B1) before the District Legal Services Authority against defendant No.1 to 5 and
Tahasildar for cancellation of pattadar pass books and as the defendant did not agree for amicable settlement he filed this suit against defendant Nos.1 to 5 and the purchasers defendant Nos.6 to 28.
8. Whereas defendant No.1 who contested the suit by filing written statement and gave evidence as DW.1 contended that his father Nadipanna and plaintiff partitioned the properties covered by Ex.A1 under oral partition in the year 1963 and from then both of them were enjoying their respective properties and the plaintiff acted upon on the said oral partition and sold Ac.1.00 out of Ac.22.57 cents in Sy.No.283 under original of Ex.B8 registered sale deed dated 28.1.1971. He also gifted the remaining Ac.21.57 cents in Sy.No.283 under the original of Ex.B9 registered gift deed dated 11.10.1974 to Eswaramma and others who are the daughters of G. Balanna. Plaintiff and his son G. Eswaraiah also sold Ac.4.00 in
Sy.No.30-2 under registered sale deed dated 9.4.1992 under the original of Ex.B7 to Perika Yellappa. Apart from that the father of defendant No.1 filed his land
OS 114/2010 8
ceiling declaration in CC No.1510/75 and the same was verified by the verification officer and filed report Ex.B3. As peer him, his father and plaintiff entered into family settlement deed under which they partitioned their properties as per the earlier oral partition. After the death of his father, defendant No.1 and his children are in possession of the properties that fell to their share under ‘A’ schedule of
Ex.B2.
9. Issue Nos.1 to 3:
In view of the rival contentions of both parties, I answer issue Nos.1 to 3 together.
The suit schedule properties are as follows:
Full Extent Extent S.No. Sy.No. Ac. Cents Ac. Cents
1. 127-1 4.88 4.88
2. 127-2 8.10 8.10
3. 114 22.17 11.98 ½
4. 69-1 2.09 2.09
5. 69-3 16.73 16.73
6. 131-2 3.92 3.92
7. 131-3 5.35 5.35
8. 131-1 7.59 7.69
9. 168 26.80 26.80
10. As per the admitted case, Nadipanna, the father of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff got the following properties and a house under the original of Ex.A1 registered gift deed dated 16.2.1960 executed by their father Pothappa.
Sy.No. Extent Total Suit schedule Sl.No. gifted Extent Ac. cents 127-1 4.88 1 127-2 8.10 2 30/2 6.21 ½ Out of 12.43 114 11.08 ½ out of 22.17 3 Thurakaragichenu 69/1 2.09 4 69/3 16.73 5 131/2 3.92 6 131/3 5.35 7 283 22.57 Kunjuchenu 168 26.80 9 Dunaiah chenu 9 131/1 7.69 8 Yerra Pothappa chenu Total : 115.44
11. As per the plaintiff, there was no partition of the properties covered by Ex.A1 in between himself and the father of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is contending that his father and plaintiff orally partitioned the properties covered under Ex.A1 in
OS 114/2010 9
1963 and from then they were in exclusive possession of their respective shares and plaintiff acted upon that oral partition and sold and gifted the properties under
Exs.B7 to B9.
12. As per the defendants, defendant No.27 purchased Ac.5.80 cents land out of
Ac.16.73 cents in Sy.No.69/3 from defendant No.1 under registered sale deed
dated 28.4.2005 and in that document this plaintiff signed as an attestor. Plaintiff
as PW.1 in his cross-examination dated 2.8.2012 deposed as
“The signature shown to me in the copy of registered sale deed dated
28.4.2005 as first attestor at page No.3 is not mine.”
In his cross-examination page No.3 para No.2 he deposed as
“I do not know whether D.27 is added as party to the suit since he
purchased and possessed Ac.5.80 cents of land.”
Registered copy of the said sale deed dated 28.4.2005 is filed by defendant No.1 along with Ex.B1. But the said document is not marked.
13. Plaintiff as PW.1 in his cross-examination dated 23.7.2012 denied that he executed Ex.B9 registered gift dated 11.10.1974. But he admitted that he sold
Ac.1.00 of land in Sy.No.283 to Noorjahan under registered sale deed Ex.A8 dated 28.1.1971. He also admitted that he sold an extent of Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.30-2 under registered sale deed dated 9.4.1992. Ex.B7 is the copy of the same. He added that he sold the same at the instance of father of defendant No.1. He also admitted as
“My full rights are sold under the said document with specific boundaries as
per the instructions of my brother.”
14. Showing the above said instances of conveyance of the properties by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 is contending that plaintiff acted upon the partition that was done in 1963. He is also relying on Ex.B3 Inspection report by the verification officer under land ceiling case CC No.1510/75 relating to the father of defendant
No.1 wherein the following properties are shown in the land ceiling declaration of the father of defendant No.1.
OS 114/2010 10
Sy.No. Extent Ac. Cents Extent as in Ex.B1 127-1 4.88 127-2 8.10 30-2 6.21 ½ 8.43 69-1 2.09 69-3 16.73 131-2 3.92 2.92 168 26.80 131-1 7.69
15. As per defendant No.1 on 16.6.1998 father of defendant No.1 and plaintiff executed Ex.B2 memorandum of partition evidencing the prior partition under which ‘A’ schedule fell to the share of father of defendant No.1 and ‘B’ schedule fell to the share of plaintiff as noted below:
A schedule fell to the share of J. B schedule fell to the share of Pothanna, father of D1 Musalanna (Plaintiff) Sy.No. Extent Sy.No. Extent 127-1 4.88 114/2, 22-17 11.08 ½ 127-2 8.10 283 22.573 30-2 8.43 out of 12.43 Ganda Kondanna chenu 10.65 6.35 69/3 16.73 131/2 2.92 131/13 5.35 168 26.80 131/1 7.69
In that it is also stated that as the father of defendant No.1 got more extent he paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff. As per the certificate of M.R.O. appended to
Ex.B2 Gandham Kondanna chenu is in the following survey numbers as per diglot.
Sy.No.99 Ac.10.32 cents
Sy.No.100/2 Ac. 6.28 cents ----------------- Ac.16.60 cents -----------------
16. Plaintiff as PW.1 in his cross-examination page No.3 para No.3 deposed as
“It is true that I am exclusively cultivating Gandam Kondanna chenu an
extent of Ac.10.65 cents and Ac.6.35 cents in Sy.Nos.99 and 100 of Sanapa
village.”
In his cross-examination he denied the partition under Ex.B2 but admitted his signatures in all five pages of Ex.B2. In his cross-examination dated 2.8.2012 he deposed as
“The signatures shown to me on the family partition deed dated 16.6.1998
is mine. In all the five pages I singed and they belong to me. Ex.B2 is the family partition deed dated 16.6.1998.”
OS 114/2010 11
As per the defendants the daughters of plaintiff namely (1) Baby (2)
Nageswaramma (3) Nagamani also attested Ex.B2. PW.1 in his cross-examination page No.3 para No.4 deposed as
“Baby, wife of Narasimhulu, is my daughter, J. Nageswaramma and G.
Nagamani are also my daughters. I do not know whether my 3 daughters signed
in Ex.B2 as attestors along with others. I cannot identify the alleged signatures of my daughters in Ex.B2 which are shown to me. It is not true to suggest that I
can identify the signatures of my daughters in Ex.B2, but I am intentionally
deposing falsehood for purpose of the case.”
In page No.4 para No.1 Pw.1 deposed as
“It is true I was allotted Ac.11-8½ cents out of Ac.22.17 cents in Sy.No.114
of Sanapa village and I am enjoying it.”
17. Thus even though the plaintiff denied the partition under Ex.B2, he did not examine any one of his daughters to disprove that they signed in Ex.B2. The sales covered by Exs.B7 and B8 prove that there was partition in between the plaintiff and father of defendant No.1 and it was acted upon. Ex.B3 land ceiling declaration also proves that there was partition in between father of defendant No.1 and plaintiff. Even though plaintiff denied the gift covered by Ex.B9 dated 11.10.1974 we can conclude that it was executed by plaintiff as it is a registered deed executed long prior to the dispute and 30 years prior to this suit in view of the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. All these goes to show that there was partition in between the father of defendant No.1 and plaintiff. The plaintiff who acted upon the partition and alienated the properties under Exs.B7 to B9 to others now again cannot claim for partition of the plaint schedule properties. As plaintiff admitted his signatures in all five pages of Ex.B2 and as he is not denying the signatures of his daughters as attestors in Ex.B2, we can conclude that plaintiff and father of defendant No.1 executed Ex.B2 in evidence of earlier partition. In Ex.B2 it is stated that they partitioned the properties 30 years prior to the date of partition and in evidence of that partition they executed Ex.B2. As Ex.B2 was executed evidencing earlier partition, it is admissible in evidence without registration and defendant No.1 need not pay stamp duty and penalty on Ex.B2. As the suit schedule properties were already partitioned orally about 30 years prior to Ex.B2 and plaintiff acted upon that partition and later on in evidence of that partition
OS 114/2010 12
Ex.B2 was executed on 16.6.1998, plaintiff again cannot seek partition. So, the plaintiff is not entitled for partition of the suit schedule properties and allotment of half share. Thus these issues are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
18. Issue No.4:
In view of the decisions arrived in issue Nos.1 to 3, this suit is liable to be dismissed with costs of contesting defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 7 to 9, 12 to 17, 19 to 21 and 23.
19. In the result, this suit is dismissed with costs of defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 7 to 9, 12 to 17, 19 to 21 and 23.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced
by me in open Court, on this the 3rd day of June, 2013
Judge, Family Court
(FAC) III Addl District Judge (FTC), Anantapur
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:
PW.1 : G. Musalanna DW.1 : G. Pothappa DW.2 : U. Lakshmireddy
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF
Ex.A1 : Registration extract of the gift deed dated 16.4.1960
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS
Ex.B1 : Copy of petition in PLC No.349/2009 Ex.B2 : Unregistered partition deed dated 16.6.1998 Ex.B3 : Verification Officer report in CC 1510/75 Ex.B4 : Receipt dated 15.12.1988 Ex.B5 : Receipt dated 7.4.1992 Ex.B6 : 10(1) extract and adangal extract issued by VRO, Sanapa dated 8.4.1992 Ex.B7 : Registration copy of sale deed executed by plaintiff in favour of P. Yellappa
dated 9.4.1992
Ex.B8 : Registration copy of sale deed executed by plaintiff in favour of 3rd parties
dated 28.1.1971
Ex.B9 : Registration copy of sale deed executed by plaintiff dated 11.10.1974 Ex.B10 : Original title deed pass books of defendants 3, 4 and 5 Ex.B11 : Original pattadar pass books of D1 and D2 Ex.B12 : Certified copy of adangal extract for 1419 fasli Ex.B13 : Certified copy of 1-B register extract issued by Tahsildar, Atmakur dated 18.11.2009
III ADJ
Back Daily Status
In the Court of :III Addl. District Judge
Case No. :OS/0000003/2011 D.Ragini Vs B.U.Nagaraja Rao
Date : 01-06-2013
Business: Plaintiffs one and three present. Defendants called absent. They did not file petition for recording compromise deficit court fee of Rs.62,226/- has to be paid by the plaintiffs. The petition in IA 164 of 2013 which is filed to grant one month time for payment of deficit court fee as ordered in Order dated 21.1.2013 is dismissed today as deficit court is not paid by the plaintiffs. This suit is dismissed for default with costs of D1 to D7. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED Disposal Date: 01-06-2013 III Addl. District Judge
Order Record 20 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMA/3/2013 | Pathon Poor Basha vs Mulla Masthan | 03 Jun 2013 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/95/2011 | Rallpalli Uma Maheswari vs Akulati Jayaraman | 03 Jun 2013 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/114/2010 | G.Musalanna vs P.Pothappa | 03 Jun 2013 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| AS/79/2011 | S.Prakash vs Bhagyamma | 01 Jun 2013 | Order On Exgibit | Suit Dismissed |
| OS/3/2011 | D.Ragini vs B.U.Nagaraja Rao | 01 Jun 2013 | Copy of Order | Dismissed Disposal Date: 01-06-2013 Iii Addl |
| MVOP/579/2009 | N.Gangadhri,MinorRep.by N.G.,father N.Pullappa,40Y vs R.Periyaswamy | 24 May 2013 | Copy of Order | — |
| MVOP/579/2009 | N.Gangadhri,MinorRep.by N.G.,father N.Pullappa,40Y vs R.Periyaswamy | 23 May 2013 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| SC/545/2012 | The SHo Bathalapalli P.s vs Thammineni Omkarappa Omkar | 23 May 2013 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| MVOP/581/2011 | Bandlapalli Tirupalamma vs M.Obulamma | 16 May 2013 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| CRLA/187/2011 | P.saianath, vs K.jayarami Reddy | 16 May 2013 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/98/2012 | Gutta Adinarayana vs Thammineni Narasiah | 28 Apr 2013 | Copy of Order | — |
| OS/30/2013 | Juturu Venkatesu, age 34 Years vs Juturu Sanjanna alias Sanjeevanna | 27 Apr 2013 | Copy of Order | — |
| CRLA/37/2013 | The SHO II Town P.S. vs Gajam Setty Pullaiah | 26 Apr 2013 | Copy of Order | — |
| MVOP/140/2011 | Munagala Adi Lakshmamma vs Islavath Babu Naik | 25 Apr 2013 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| MVOP/161/2012 | Baddenna Naik @ Badde Naik, 35 yrs vs Commissioner of Family welfare | 24 Apr 2013 | Copy of Order | — |
| MVOP/588/2011 | Chakali Anjaneyulu, vs Bellary Nabi Radool, | 22 Apr 2013 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| OS/85/2011 | C.Mallikarjuna Reddy vs T.Venkatasiva Reddy | 22 Apr 2013 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| AS/108/2012 | Gutha Sreenivasulu vs Bandaru Devaprasad, | 18 Apr 2013 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| MVOP/637/2009 | G.Hanumanthamma vs K.Obul Reddy | 15 Apr 2013 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| MVOP/634/2009 | G.Nagamma, 60Yrs vs K.Obul Reddy | 12 Apr 2013 | Copy of Order | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has VACANT FAC Sri B. Siva Nagi Reddy, Family Judge handled?
VACANT FAC Sri B. Siva Nagi Reddy, Family Judge has handled 20 court orders since 2013 at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District). The average disposal rate is 10 orders per month.
What types of cases does VACANT FAC Sri B. Siva Nagi Reddy, Family Judge hear?
Based on available records, VACANT FAC Sri B. Siva Nagi Reddy, Family Judge primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Appeal Suits) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals, Sessions Cases) at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District).
Where is VACANT FAC Sri B. Siva Nagi Reddy, Family Judge currently posted?
VACANT FAC Sri B. Siva Nagi Reddy, Family Judge is posted as III Addl. District Judge at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh.
Are judgments by VACANT FAC Sri B. Siva Nagi Reddy, Family Judge available online?
Yes. 5 judgments by VACANT FAC Sri B. Siva Nagi Reddy, Family Judge are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does VACANT FAC Sri B. Siva Nagi Reddy, Family Judge dispose cases?
VACANT FAC Sri B. Siva Nagi Reddy, Family Judge disposes approximately 10 cases per month, based on 20 orders handled over their tenure at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District).
Since when is VACANT FAC Sri B. Siva Nagi Reddy, Family Judge serving?
VACANT FAC Sri B. Siva Nagi Reddy, Family Judge has been serving at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District) since 2013.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Apr 2013 — Jun 2013III Addl. District Judge · 20 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court