Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ravipudi Lakshminarayana ... vs Parvathareddy Sreedhar Anand 19 ... on 20 October, 2021
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
APPEAL SUIT No.537 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This is a regular first appeal preferred under Section 96 CPC by
the plaintiffs in O.S.No.186 of 2003 on the file of the Court of learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. The respondents were all the
defendants. By the decree and judgment dated 02.06.2014, the suit
was dismissed without costs.
2. The appellants laid the suit for partition of the plaint schedule
property to allot their alleged share of Ac.2.23 cents out of it or in
alternative to allot the above extent in a single plot out of Ac.19.41
cents taking into consideration equities and to grant a permanent
injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 4 from going on with their
mining operations in the plaint schedule property till division of the
property by metes and bounds.
3. The property in dispute is described in the plaint schedule as
under:
"Prakasam District Registration - Chimakurthy Sub Registration
Chimakurthy village - land an extent about Ac.19.41 cents
consists as a single plot with the suit three items in S.Nos.933/1,
933/2 and 960 of Chimakurthy Revenue
Item No.1: Patta No.148 - S.No.933/1 - out of Ac.6.27 cents
East : S.No.980/1 belongs to Devarakonda Peda Kotaiah
S.No.980/2 land
South : Item No.2 land covered in S.No.933/2
West : S.No.977 land belongs to Guddanti Venkata Ramana etc
North : Item No.3 land to some extent and S.No.587 land to
some extent
In which plaintiffs' share Ac.0.65½ cents
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
Item No.2: Patta No.141 - S.No.933/2 - out of Ac.9-63 cents
South : Lands of Guddanti Gopala Krishna etc.
West :Land of Pallala Subba Rao, Kadiyam Peda
Venkateswarlu China Venkateswarlu
North : Item No.1
In which plaintiff's share is Ac.1.21 cents
Item No.3: Patta No.647 - S.No.960 out of Ac.3.51 cents
bounded by
East : Lands of S.Gangaiah etc.
South : Land in Item No.1 of Guddanti Venkata Ramanlu
West : Land in S.No.977 of Guttanti Venkata Ramanlu
North : Land of Vemula Kanakaiah to some extent and others
In which plaintiffs' share is Ac.0.36 ½ cents
Total extent of plaintiffs' share in three items is Ac.2.23 cents."
It shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the suit lands' for
convenience.
4. Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao, Sri Vemuri Jayaramaiah, Sri
Divi Venkatacharyulu, Sri Uppalapati Venkataswamy, Sri
ParisettiBrahmaiah and Sri Mastan Khan jointly purchased an extent
of Ac.3.51½ cents in Survey No.960, Ac.9.63 cents in Survey No.933/2
and Ac.6.27 cents in Survey No.933/1 of Chimakurthy village under
registered sale deeds dated 22.04.1946, 27.03.1946 and 23.04.1946
respectively. They were in possession and enjoyment of these entire
lands, that constituted a single plot of Ac.19.41 cents.
5. Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao was a primary school teacher at
Chimakurthy. The material on record is that he was in possession and
enjoyment of other lands at Chimakurthy including in Sy.No.580/2
and the respondents 1 to 3 stated that he also owned certain extents
in Sy.No.937/1 of the same village apart from house property. Sri
Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao had four sons, viz. respondents 5, 9, 10
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
and Sri Kondapi Ramachandra Rao apart from two daughters
Smt.Chundi Rajamma and Smt.Saradamba. The respondents 6 and 7
are the sons of Sri Kondapi Krishna Rao and whereas the respondents
17 and 18 are his daughters. The respondents 19 and 20 are the wife
and daughter respectively of respondent No.9. The respondents 11
and 12 are the sons of respondent No.10.
6. Sri Kondapi Ramachandra Rao, one of the sons of Sri Kondapi
Venkata Subba Rao died in the year 1978 leaving behind his wife
Smt.Kameswaramma, respondent No.8 - his son and two daughters,
viz. Smt.Varalakshmi and Smt.Latha Devi. A geneology of this family
is given hereunder for ready reference.
Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao (KVSR) (DIED IN 1949)
(Wife Predeceased)
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
Late Kondapi Late Kondapi Kondapi Late Kondapi Chundi Sara-
Krishna Rao Srinivasa Rao
Vasudeva Rao Ramachandra Rajamma damba
(D-5) (Son) (D-9)(Son) (D-10)(Son) Rao(KRR) (Daughter)(Daughter)
Died in 1978
| Kondapi | |
| Padmavathamma | |
| (D-19) (Wife) | |
| | | Kameswaramma
| | | (Wife)
| | Kondapi Venkate- |
| Chundi Padma- shwar Rao (D-11) |
| vathi(D-20) (Son) |
| (Daughter) Kondapi Srinivasa |
|-- Kondapi Rao (D-12) (Son) |
| Subba Rao(D-6)(Son) -----------------------------------------------------------
|-- Kondapi | | |
| Prasada Rao(D-7)(Son) Kondapi Krishna Varalakshmi Latha Devi
|-- Ippagunta Padma (D-17) Mohan Rao (Daughter) (Daughter)
(Daughter) (Son)(D-8)
|-- Kondapi Anuradha
(D-18) (Daughter)
7. One of the purchasers of these lands Sri Patan Masthan Khan
was also a teacher. Respondent No.13 is his son and the respondents
14 as well as 15 are his daughters. Smt.Mumtaz Begum was his
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
another daughter, who died about 14 years prior to the institution of
the suit. Sri Shaik Karimullah is the son of Smt.Mumtaz Begum and
her husband is Sri Shaik Pentu Saheb. Smt.Shaik Parveen is their
daughter. Geneology of the family of Sri Patan Mastan Khan is given
hereunder for ready reference.
PATAN MASTAN KHAN (MK)(Died 1970)
WIFE (Died in 1988)
| | | |
Ibrahim Khan Patan Jaharabi Patan Khadarabi Late Mumtaz
(D-13)(Son) (D-14)(Daughter) (D-15)(Daughter) Begum
(Daughter)
|
---------------------------------
| |
Sk.Karimulla Sk.Parveen
(Son) (Daughter)
8. The 16th respondent filed O.S.No.464 of 1995 for partition
against the respondents 1 to 4 and legal representatives of Sri late
Uppalapati Venkata Swamy on the file of the Court of learned Junior
Civil Judge, Ongole, claiming allotment of Ac.0.41 cts., Ac.0.77 cts.,
and Ac.0.23½ cents in Sy.Nos.933/1, 933/2 and 960 respectively of
Chimakurthy village claiming that he had purchased the same from
the daughters of late Sri Uppalapati Venkata Swamy under a
registered sale deed dated 23.08.1995. The suit was decreed.
A.S.No.23 of 1999 was preferred by the respondents 1 to 3 against the
decree and judgment therein on the file of the Court of learned
Principal District Judge, Prakasam, at Ongole. It was dismissed on
31.03.2001. S.A.No.543 of 2001 preferred by them to this Court was
also dismissed on 04.09.2001. SLP preferred by them before the
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India was also dismissed.
9. O.S.No.16 of 2003 is pending on the file of the Court of learned
I Additional District Judge, Ongole, for the relief of specific
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
performance of contract against the respondents 1, 2 and 16 filed by
M/s. Pokarna Granites Limited.
10. The above all are admitted and undisputed facts.
11. The contention of the appellants is that they purchased the suit
lands under three different sale deeds for valuable consideration from
the daughters of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao on 29.03.2003, from
the wife and daughters of Sri Kondapi Ramachandra Rao on
31.03.2003 and Sri Shaik Karimullah and Smt.Shaik Parveen on
06.05.2003 and thus they have right, title and interest to an extent of
Ac.2.27 cents. Basing on these sales in their favour contending that
their vendors had right and interest in the share of Sri Kondapi
Venkata Subba Rao out of total extent of Ac.19.41 cents in these
three survey numbers as well as on account of Sri Masthan Rao, they
laid the suit for partition. They further claimed that the mining
activity being carried on in this extent by the third respondent and
through the fourth respondent under a secret arrangement and that
they be restrained by way of permanent injunction till the allotment
of their share by metes and bounds.
12. They also contended that the outcome in O.S.No.464 of 1995
up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, also favoured them in this regard
since their claim is similarly based for a joint share out of total
extent of Ac.19.41 cents purchased by Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao
and his four friends in the year 1946.
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
13. The respondents 1 to 4 are contested the claim of the
appellants. Whereas, the other respondents remained ex parte in the
suit.
14. Initially the appellants did not request for issuance of notices
to these respondents, who remained ex parte in the trial Court
stating that they are not necessary parties. In the course of hearing
in this appeal, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the
respondents 1 to 3 that the appeal as filed cannot be maintained in
terms of Order XLI Rule 14 CPC, after amendment of CPC in the year
1976. In response to it, on behalf of the appellants, I.A.No.1 of 2021
was filed requesting to direct notice to these respondents also in this
appeal. After hearing both the parties, by an order dated 07.04.2021
I.A.No.1 of 2021 was allowed directing notice to these respondents.
However, they remained ex parte in this appeal also, who did not
choose to participate, inspite of service of notices.
15. Specific defence of respondents 1 and 2 resisting the claim of
the appellants is that the entire extent of Ac.19.41 cents in
Sy.Nos.933/1, 933/2 and 960 of Chimakurthy village is a rocky dry
land, not fit for cultivation and therefore, the right holders of this
land including the family of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao, intended
to sell away their shares. Therefore, according to these respondents,
they sold their share in these lands for valuable consideration to the
first respondent on 02.11.1991, which is to the knowledge of the
alleged vendors of the appellants, who were also benefited by the
above sale transactions and that they ratified the same. Their
further contention is that the share of late Sri Patan Masthan Khan in
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
these lands was sold accordingly on 23.10.1991 to the first
respondent, which was also to the knowledge of the alleged vendors
of these appellants, who had ratified the above sale.
16. The respondents 1 and 2 further contended that the alleged
vendors of the appellants are bound by the afore stated sales. They
further contended that the sale deeds under which the appellants
have been claiming were obtained by misrepresentation and fraud,
which are fabricated. They further contended that they are not
bonafide transactions brought out with an evil intention of unlawful
enrichment to inflict wrongful loss to the respondents 1 to 3 at the
instance of M/s.Pokarna Granites. They further stated that these
alleged sale transactions in favour of the appellants are all sham and
nominal.
17. The respondents 1 and 2 further contended that Sri Shaik
Karimullah and Smt.Shaik Parveen, executed a ratification deed
dated 22.03.2003, confirming the transaction covered by the sale
deed dated 23.10.1991, under which a part of the suit land was sold
by the brother and sisters of their mother. Sri Shaik Pentu Saheb,
husband of Smt.Mumtaz Begum as per the contention of the
respondents 1 and 2 also executed a similar ratification deed on
23.10.1991 confirming the sale in their favour under the sale deed
dated 23.10.1991.
18. The respondents 1 and 2 questioned the maintainability of the
suit on the ground that the claim is barred by time, that all the
properties of the joint family are not sought to be divided and thus,
the suit for partial partition is not maintainable.
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
19. The respondents 1 and 2 further contended that Sri Kondapi
Venkata Subba Rao died on 24.03.1949 and therefore, Hindu
Succession Act 1956 has no application to this case.
20. The respondents 1 and 2 also referred to mining activity
undertaken by them, upon an investment of about Rs.20.00 crores, in
this entire extent since the third respondent is an export oriented
unit of granite and further contended that these developments were
all known to the appellants, who never raised any protest at any time
and therefore, they are estopped from questioning the rights of the
respondents 1 to 3 over these lands, who had also acquiesced to the
rights of the respondents 1 to 3 to these extents. Referring to the
permission granted by the Government of A.P. as mining lease, they
further contended that the enjoyment of these lands by them in their
own right is protected under law and that they are bonafide
purchasers. They further contended that the mining lease was
granted to the entire extent in Sy.Nos.933/1, 933/2 and 960 and that
no part of this extent is kept idle. They further contended that all
the persons, whose rights are involved are not impleaded as parties to
this suit; and that the suit is filed without seeking cancellation of the
sale deeds under which the first respondent had purchased, cannot be
maintained. They further contended that since daughters of Sri
Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and other legal heirs of Sri Kondapi
Ramachandra Rao did not have share in the suit lands, the appellants
cannot claim any right or interest to these lands as the purchasers.
21. On the pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues
and additional issues for trial:
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a share in schedule
property as claimed by them?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a permanent injunction
restraining D1 to D4 from quarrying therein?
3. To what relief?
Additional Issues:
1. Whether the suit land is a rocky dry land highly inexpedient for
cultivation as contended by D1 to D3?
2. Whether the vendors of the plaintiffs ratified the sales in favour
of the first defendant as contended by the defendants 1 to 3?
3. Whether the claim of the plaintiffs vendor was barred by
limitation as contended by the defendants 1 to 3?
4. Whether the 4th defendant is entitled to do mining operations in
the suit land?
5. Whether the plaintiffs vendors have acquiesced the rights of the
defendants 1 to 3 in the schedule property?
6. Whether the sale transactions contracted by the plaintiff are void
and tainted with unlawful object of undue enrichment?
7. Whether the suit is bad for partial partition?
8. Whether the defendant No.1 and 2 are bonafide purchasers of the
schedule property?
22. The appellants 1 and 2 examined themselves as P.W.2 and
P.W.1 respectively while relying on deposition of P.W.3 at the trial
apart from Ex.A1 to Ex.A24 in support of their contention. Father of
the first respondent, who claimed being the director of the third
respondent company examined himself as D.W.1 while relying on
Ex.B1 to Ex.B14 in support of their contention.
23. On the material and evidence, learned trial Judge did not
favour the claim of the appellants for partition and ultimately
dismissed the suit. On additional issue No.1, learned trial Judge held
that the entire extent of the land in dispute is a rocky and dry land,
unfit for cultivation. On additional issues 2 and 8, learned trial Judge
held that the sales in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 were ratified
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
under the registered deeds and that the respondents 1 and 2 are
bonafide purchasers of these properties. On issue No.3, learned trial
Judge however held that the suit is within time. On additional issue
No.4 learned trial Judge held that the mining activity carried by the
fourth respondent with the permission of the third respondent cannot
be questioned by the appellants. On additional issue No.5, learned
trial Judge held that the vendors of the appellants acquiesced to the
rights of the respondents 1 to 3 in the suit lands while further holding
on additional issue No.7 that a suit for partial partition is
maintainable. On additional issue No.6, learned trial Judge observed
that the appellants failed to clear the doubts and suspicious
circumstances surrounding execution of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and that these
sale deeds were obtained playing mischief and fraud with an unlawful
object and for undue enrichment. Thus, these sale deeds are held
void, that cannot be enforced.
24. The main discussion as seen from the impugned judgment of
the trial Court is in relation to issue No.1 as to whether the
appellants stood entitled to seek partition and which is held against
them. Similarly, on account of the finding so recorded on all these
issues, learned trial Judge did not favour to grant permanent
injunction in favour of the appellants against the respondents. As a
result, the suit was dismissed.
25. Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri P.Roy
Reddy and Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri
C.V.Surya Narayana, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 as
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
well as Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for the 4th respondent
addressed arguments.
26. The predominant consideration in this appeal is in respect of
right of alleged female coparceners to seek partition of their
undivided interest out of the total extent of Ac.19.41 cents in three
suit survey numbers, viz., 960, 933/2 and 933/1. Therefore, the
point to determine now is to the above effect and if at the instance
of these alleged female coparceners relief of partition with reference
to the suit lands be granted. Therefore, the following points arise for
determination in this appeal.
1. Whether the alleged female co-sharers of undivided interest
as claimed are entitled to seek division of the properties
and if, purchasers from them are entitled for relief of
partition of the suit lands out of total extent of Ac.19.41
cents?
2. Whether the appellants are entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction restraining the third and fourth
respondents from carrying on mining activity in the suit
lands till the properties divided?
3. To what relief?
27. POINT NO.1: Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and his four
friends, stated above, purchased different extents comprising
Ac.19.41 cents in Chimakurthy village under the originals of Ex.A8 to
Ex.A10 sale deeds. An extent of Ac.3.51 cents in Sy.No.960 was
purchased on 22.04.1946 under the original of Ex.A10. Another
extent of Ac.9.63 cents in Sy.No.933/2 was purchased by them on
27.03.1946 under the original of Ex.A8. Similarly, they purchased
Ac.6.27 cents in Sy.No.933/1 under the original of Ex.A9 registered
sale deed dated 23.04.1946. Sri Parisetti Brahmaiah had right only in
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
Sy.No.960 and 933/1 covered by the sales under Ex.A9 and Ex.A10.
He had no right and interest in Sy.No.933/2. Sri Vemuri Jayaramaiah
had purchased share of Sri Parisetti Brahmaiah in Sy.No.960 and
933/1 on 09.05.1951 under a registered sale deed.
28. During their lifetime, these holders of this entire extent
undisputedly were enjoying the same of their undivided interest and
as such each one of them was entitled to an undivided right and
interest to an extent of Ac.3.55½ cents.
29. The sales covered by Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 are admitted.
30. The first defendant purchased an extent of Ac.3.55½ cents
comprising Ac.1.4½ cents in Sy.No.933/1, Ac.1.92½ cents in
Sy.No.933/1 and Ac.0.58½ cents in Sy.No.960 of Chimakurthy village
from three surviving sons of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and their
respective sons, who are respondents 5 to 7 and respondents 9 to 12
as well as respondent No.8, who is the surviving son of Sri Kondapi
Ramachandra Rao, who in turn happened to be the deceased son of
Sri Kondapi Venkata Subbarao. Ex.B3 is the registered sale deed
dated 24.10.1991 under which the first respondent purchased another
extent of Ac.3.55 cents in the above survey numbers representing the
undivided right and interest of Sri Uppalapati Venkataswamy - the
original purchaser, through his son Sri Uppalapati Yallamanda, Sri
Surabhmanyam and Smt.Subbamma W/o.Sri Venkataswamy.
31. Ex.B2 is another sale deed dated 23.10.1991 under which, on
behalf of the first respondent, who was then minor, his father Sri
Parvathareddy Sridhar Anand purchased another undivided right and
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
interest in the same survey numbers from then surviving legal heirs of
Sri Patan Masthan Khan, viz. Sri Ibrahim Khan, Smt.Khader Bi and
Smt.Jakeera Bi. These sales are also admitted.
32. Mining or quarrying operations for excavation of granite
mineral from these lands is also admitted.
33. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, D.W.1 deposed that quarry
lease was initially granted for Ac.14.55 cents by the Government of
A.P. under its order dated 17.11.1993 and that the balance, out of
the purchased land was earmarked for dumping the waste material
arising out of these quarrying operations. Thereafter, he deposed
that further lease was granted for 20 years through Director of Mines
and Geology, Government of A.P. on 19.04.2003 covering the
remaining land and thus, he stated that this entire extent is covered
by mining operations for which the third respondent had spent nearly
Rs.20.00 crores. At the trial, on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3,
Ex.B8 to Ex.B12 were produced, in support of their claim of obtaining
lease from the Government for quarrying granite in this land.
34. The suit lands including the entire extent of Ac.19.41 cents in
these three survey numbers are surrounded by the quarries belonging
to different entities. The second appellant as P.W.1 admitted in
cross-examination for the respondents 1 to 3 that this mining activity
at Chimakurthy has taken pace since about the year 1980. The 4th
respondent was a licencee from the third respondent for quarrying
granite, under an arrangement in between them. It is the contention
of the 4th respondent that the terms of this arrangement was also
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
over and that it has nothing to do with the suit lands. It is not indeed
denied by the appellants.
35. The entire claim of the appellants is based on purchase of an
alleged undivided right and interest in the name of appellants 1 and 2
under Ex.A1 executed by the daughters of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba
Rao, viz. Smt.Saradamba and Smt.Atchamma on 29.03.2003, in all
Ac.1.17 ½ cents in these three survey numbers and another extent of
Ac.0.33 cents therein from the legal heirs of Sri Kondapi Ramchandra
Rao, viz. Smt.Kameswaramma his wife, Smt.Varalakshmi and
Smt.Latha Devi under Ex.A2 sale deed dated 31.03.2003. Thus, they
claimed that they purchased Ac.1.52 cents together under these two
sale deeds. The appellants further claimed that they purchased
Ac.0.71 cents in these three survey numbers as per Ex.A3 from Sri
Shaik Karimullah and Smt.Parveen, son and daughter of Smt. late
Mumtaz Begum, deceased daughter of Sri Patan Masthan Khan.
36. The claim of the respondents 1 and 2 is in respect of entire
extent of Ac.19.48 cts., covered by these three survey numbers.
D.W.1 deposed that the first respondent has purchased Ac.15.84½
cents in these survey numbers under the sale deeds Ex.B2 to Ex.B4
apart from another sale deed dated 28.10.1991. It is also in the
evidence of D.W.1 that the second respondent has purchased
Ac.3.55½ cents from Sri Sidda Nageswara Rao and his daughter
represented by him, under the sale deed dated 25.01.1993, which in
turn he had purchased from Sri Divi Venkatacharyulu.
37. Their vendors as alleged by the appellants are not parties to
Ex.B2 and Ex.B4 sale deeds. Therefore, according to the appellants,
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
their vendors under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 have transferred and conveyed an
undivided interest to them in respect of the suit lands.
38. The respondents 1 and 2, while disputing the claim of the
appellants on this score mainly relied on the date of death of Sri
Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and to contend that his two surviving
daughters had no right or interest to sell under Ex.A1 sale deed as his
legal heirs under Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
39. In support of their contention, they produced at the trial
Ex.B13 letter of Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Guntur, dated
30.09.2003. The contents of this letter are that as per the records
available in Zilla Parishad Office, Guntur, i.e. the Service Register of
Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao, he was born on 16.02.1899, joined as
a teacher on 16.06.1927 and died on 24.03.1949. This letter further
states that Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao, S/o.Krishnaiah was a
teacher in Upper Primary School, at Chimakurthy and died. P.W.1 -
the second appellant admitted that Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao,
was a teacher in Primary School. Extract of Service Register, which is
Ex.B14 is enclosed to Ex.B13. It reflects an entry to the effect that
Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao died on 24.03.1949 with the signature
of the concerned authority bearing date 04.05.1949.
40. The appellants are seriously questioning these entries. They
contended Ex.B13 and Ex.B14 are fabricated documents by the
respondents 1 to 3 to suit their contention.
41. Ex.B13 and Ex.B14 were obtained by the third respondent from
C.E.O., Zilla Parishad, Guntur on an application. Thus, they are
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
produced as the authenticated copies from a public authority in the
course of trial on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. They stand in the
position of public documents and that they are admissible in
evidence. In order to question these documents, the course for the
appellants at the trial was to send for the original records, i.e., the
Service Register in the name of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao,
stated to be in the custody of office of Zilla Parishad, Guntur. It is
manifest that they did not call for these original records from the
above office. The reason for their omission in this context is
unexplained. Therefore, when authenticity is attached to Ex.B13 and
Ex.B14, these entries should necessarily be considered and accepted.
They cannot be rejected from consideration. Thus, they established
that Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao died on 24.03.1949. It was
before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
42. It is admitted that the wife of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao
predeceased him. Therefore, at the death of Sri Kondapi Venkata
Subba Rao, the succession if any, opened in relation to coparcenary
property, only in favour of male progeny under Mithakshara law. His
daughters, who are the executants of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 had no right or
interest by the date of death of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao in the
property of coparcenery of himself and others. Therefore, they could
not have executed Ex.A1 sale deed conveying Ac.1.18 cents to the
appellants nor could convey any right and interest in the suit lands.
43. Even in the written submissions filed on behalf of the
appellants, as rightly pointed out for the respondents 1 to 3, there is
no reference or mention of Ex.A1 and its effect in conveying and
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
transferring the alleged interest, which the daughters of Sri Kondapi
Venkata Subba Rao had to the appellants. Therefore, the sale
covered by Ex.A1 has no legal validity since the vendors did not have
any right or interest to convey the same to the appellants. Hence,
the claim of the appellants basing on Ex.A1 in relation to a part of the
suit lands cannot stand. It has to be necessarily rejected.
44. In respect of the sale covered by Ex.A2, though in the plaint
the appellants intended to invoke Section 29-A of Hindu Succession
Act as applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh, in the final
arguments, they gave up this contention in respect of the alleged co-
parcenery right derived by Smt.Latha Devi, one of the daughters of
Sri Kondapi Ramachandra Rao. The contention of the appellants is
that the marriage of Smt.Latha Devi was celebrated about 14 years
prior to the institution of the suit and that it was after
A.P.Amendment of Hindu Succession Act came into force on
22.05.1986. From the evidence of the second appellant as P.W.1, it
is clear that the appellants did not have any material to support such
claim.
45. The contention of the respondents 1 to 3 is that a regular sale
deed was executed under Ex.B4 on 02.11.1991, the proceeds of which
were used for beneficial enjoyment of the entire family, which was
then looked after by Sri Kondapi Krishna Rao (respondent No.1) and
hence, this transaction covered by Ex.A2 is not legally valid.
46. The respondents 1 to 3 further relied on Ex.B7 rectification
deed executed by Smt.Kondapi Anuradha (respondent No.18)
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
Smt.Padma (respondent No.20) and Smt.Mangamma, W/o.Sri Prasada
Rao.
47. The executants of Ex.A2 are not parties to Ex.B7. Nonetheless,
the attempt of the respondents appears to make out a circumstance
whereby some of the legal representatives of Sri Kondapi Venkata
Subba Rao's family have acknowledged their claim that the proceeds
from the sale covered by Ex.B4 were intended for the benefit of the
family and to support their contention that left over legal heirs of Sri
Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao, if any, cannot make out a claim against
them. There is no specific reference or mention of Ex.A2 sale in
Ex.B7.
48. In respect of the purchase of the property under Ex.A3 sale
deed, relating to that part of the original extent by Sri Patan Masthan
Khan, the respondents 1 to 3 also relied on Ex.B5 and Ex.B6 similar
deeds of rectification. Ex.B5 dated 22.03.2003 was executed by Sri
Shaik Karimullah and Smt.Parveen, children of Smt.Mumtaz Begum
and Ex.B6 dated 22.03.2003 was executed by Sri Shaik Pentu Saheb,
husband of Smt.Mumtaz Begum acknowledging the sale under Ex.B2
dated 25.11.1991 by other legal heirs of Sri Masthan Khan, viz. Sri
Patan Masthan Khan and sisters Smt.Khader Bi and Smt.Zaheera Bi.
There is no specific mention or reference to the sale of land under
Ex.A3 sale deed in Ex.B5 and Ex.B6.
49. The appellants have seriously disputed the nature of Ex.B5 and
Ex.B6 to the extent of calling them, fabricated documents.
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
50. One of the circumstances relied on by the appellants in this
context is the date these documents bear relating to execution and
the date when they were registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar.
Ex.B5 as per its contents was executed on 22.03.2003 and was
registered on 19.05.2003. Ex.B6 was executed on 22.02.2003. It was
registered on 30.05.2003. A part of the date in Ex.B6 originally
mentioned as 30th May in Telugu is scored out and 22nd February in
Telugu is substituted. This is an instance, according to the appellants
to question the nature of this document. It should be borne in mind
that Sri Pentu Saheb is not one of the executants of Ex.A3 in favour of
the appellants. Being husband of Smt.Mumtaz Begum though
remarried later, in Mohammaddan Law, he had right to her property,
at her death. Thus, a legal heir of Smt.Mumtaz Begum, who had right
and interest in the properties covered by Ex.A3 supported the
respondents 1 to 3. D.W.1 in cross-examination stated that all these
rectification deeds were executed subsequent to the sales in favour
of the appellants.
51. On behalf of these parties, strenuous contentions are advanced
as to effect of date of execution appearing therein and the date of
registration of the documents.
52. Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants brought to the notice of this Court the dates of purchase
of the stamp papers at Ongole, the serial numbers they bear and also
the fact that they were presented for registration at Sub-Registrar's
Officer, at Chimakurthy.
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
53. As seen from Ex.B5, the stamp papers bear serial number 6476
and 6477 with date 21.03.2003 and which were purchased from the
stamp vendor at Ongole. The registration of these documents was
affected at Sub-Registrar's Office, Chimakurthy. The stamp papers
relating to Ex.B6 bear serial numbers 3475 and 3476 with date
21.03.2003 and remaining sheets are in green papers. Ex.B6 was also
registered at Chimakurthy.
54. In view of these circumstances, Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel contended that the date of these documents
cannot be treated being the dates on which they were executed nor
Section 47 of Indian Registration Act can be applied to them. Effect
of Section 61 of Indian Registration Act is also brought to the notice
of this Court by learned Senior Counsel Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy in this
context as to when a registration of a document is deemed complete.
In support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel relied on RAM
SARAN LALL AND OTHERS v. MST DOMINI KUER AND OTHERS1. In
para-6 of this ruling with reference to a sale in terms of Section 54 of
the Transfer of Property Act and effect of Section 61 of the Indian
Registration Act, it is stated:
"Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that sale of
tangible immovable property of the value of rupees 100 and
upwards, which the house with which we are concerned is, can be
made only by a registered instrument. Section 3 of this Act defines "
registered" as registered under the law for the time being in force
regulating the registration of documents. This, in the present case,
means the Registration Act of 1908. It is not in dispute that the
registration under the Registration Act is not complete till the
document to be registered has been, copied out in the records of
AIR 1961 SC 1747
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
the Registration Office as provided in Section 61 of that Act.
................
55. Further, with reference to application of Section 47 of Indian
Registration Act, in para - 8 of this ruling, it is stated as under:
"Section 47 of the Registration Act does not, however, say when
a sale would be deemed to be complete. It only permits a
document when registered, to operate from a certain date which
may be earlier than the date when it was registered. The object of
this section is to decide which of two or more registered
instruments in respect of the same property is to have A effect. The
section applies to a document only after it has been registered. It
has nothing to do with the completion of the registration and
therefore nothing to do with the completion of a sale, when the
instrument is one of sale. A sale which is admittedly not completed
until the registration of the instrument of sale is completed, cannot
be said to have been completed earlier because by virtue of Section
47 the instrument by which it is effected, after it has been
registered, commences to operate from an earlier date."
56. Further reliance is placed by Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel in this respect on a division bench ruling of this Court
in DIVVI SURYANARAYANA MURTHY v. COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND
ANOTHER2. In this ruling, the effect of Section 230-A of Income Tax
Act, 1961 then in vogue vis-à-vis a sale transaction is considered.
Effect of Section 47 of Indian Registration Act, relying on the
observations of Ram Sharan Lall, referred to above, is also
considered in this ruling as well as Section 54 of Transfer of Property
Act. In para - 7 of this ruling, it is stated thus:
"6. A perusal of the sections noted above especially in view of the
definitions of the expressions "instrument of transfer" and "transfer"
under Section 269A of the Act, would leave us in no doubt that the
(1979) 117 ITR 278
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
legislature intended that on the completion of the instrument of
transfer by registration under the Indian Registration Act, the
competent authority would be entitled to acquire the property if
the conditions mentioned in Section 269F of the Act have been
satisfied. As pointed out earlier, under Section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act, a sale of immovable property of the value of Rs.100
or more could only be completed by registration under the Indian
Registration Act. The expressions "instrument of transfer" and
"transfer" in Section 269A of the Act read in conjunction with the
relevant provisions noted above would clearly show that a sale by
means of an instrument of transfer could only be completed by
registration of the instrument and not otherwise. The above
interpretation of ours receives support from the proviso to Section
269D which provides that no such proceedings should be initiated in
respect of any immovable property after the expiration of a period
of nine months from the end of the month in which the instrument
of transfer in respect of such property is registered under
the Registration Act, 1908. Proceedings under Section 269C could
only be initiated after the instrument of transfer is registered under
the Registration Act and the limitation for initiation of such
proceedings is provided in the proviso to Section 269D. It could,
therefore, be safely concluded that transfer of immovable property
would be completed only when the instrument of transfer is
registered under the Registration Act, in which case only,
proceedings under Section 269C would be initiated and, under the
proviso to Section 269D, such initiation should take place within
nine months from the end of the month in which the transfer in
respect of such property is registered under the Registration Act.
When such is the position, it cannot be said that Section 47 of the
Registration Act is applicable to the case. When having regard to
the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act
and Sections 269A and 269F of the Act a sale is completed only by
the registration of the instrument of transfer under the Registration
Act, it is not possible to invoke the provisions of Section 47 of the
Indian Registration Act; more so, when the Supreme Court has held
in Ram Saran's case, , that the completion of sale takes effect on
the date of its registration. We are fortified in our view by the
decision of the Delhi High Court in Mahavir Metal Works P. Ltd. v.
Union of India (1974) 95 ITR 197.
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
57. Learned Senior Counsel Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, relied further
on HIRALAL AGRAWAL v. RAMPADARATH SINGH AND OTHERS3,
where the effect of Section 61 of Indian Registration Act is considered
as well as application of Section 16 of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land).
58. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents 1 to 3 explained the purport of these three rulings, to
cover the situations where the question is in relation to a sale
transaction, completed in terms of Sections 54 of Transfer of Property
Act and Section 61 of Indian Registration Act.
59. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel also relied on
Section 47 of Indian Registration Act contending that in effect, the
date of the execution appearing in the document shall be date of
such document and registration of this document did not have any
consequence. In support of his contention, reliance is placed by Sri
C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3
NANDA BALLABH GURURANI v. SMT.MAQBOOL BEGUM4. In para-6 of
this ruling in this context, it is stated as under:
"...............
in view of the provision I contained in Section 47 of the Indian
Registration Act, it clearly transpires that once the deed is
registered, it would operate from the time from which it would
have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been
required or made and not from the time of its
registration"....................
AIR 1969 SC 244
(1980) 3 SCC 346
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
60. Further reliance is also placed by Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel on THAKUR KISHAN SINGH (DEAD) v. ARVIND
KUMAR5. In para-3 of this ruling, it is stated:
"Section 47 of the Registration Act provides that a registered
document shall operate from the time it would have commenced to
operate if no registration thereof had been required or made and
not from the time of its registration. It is well established that a
document so long it is not registered is not valid yet once it is
registered it takes effect from the date of its execution.(See Ram
Saran Lall v. Mst Domini Kuer, and Nanda Ballaiah Gururani V.
Smt.Maqbool Begum(referred above)"
61. It is necessary now to consider Section 47 of the Indian
Registration Act. It reads as under:
"47. Time from which registered document operates: A registered
document shall operate from the time from which it would have
commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required
or made, and not from the time of its registration."
62. Section 61 of the Registration Act relating to endorsements and
certificate on the documents produced for the registration reads as
under:
"61. Endorsements and certificate to be copied and document
returned.--
(1) The endorsements and certificate referred to and mentioned in
sections 59 and 60 shall thereupon be copied into the margin of the
Register-book, and the copy of the map or plan (if any) mentioned
in section 21 shall be filed in Book No.1.
(2) The registration of the document shall thereupon be deemed
complete, and the document shall then be returned to the person
who presented the same for registration, or to such other person (if
any) as he has nominated in writing in that behalf on the receipt
mentioned in section 52."
(1994) 6 SCC 591
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
63. In terms of Section 61(2), after meeting the requirements of
Clause-1, the registration of the document presented shall be deemed
completed.
64. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act relates to sale as a
transfer of ownership relating to immovable property. It reads as
under:
"54. "Sale" Defined - Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange
for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
Sale how made: Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable
property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the
case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a
registered instrument."
65. What is registered under the Transfer of Property Act in
interpretation clause in Section 3 of this Act is stated as under:
"Registered - "Registered" means registered in any part of
the territories to which this Act extends under the law for
the time being in force regulating the registration of
documents."
66. When sale of a immovable property takes place, value of which
is Rs.100/- or more, in terms of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act
it should be by means of registered instruments. In view of meaning
assigned to 'registered' under Section 3 of this Act, it shall be in
terms of the provisions of the Registration Act. A sale transaction
relating to immovable property of Rs.100/- and upwards is
compulsorily registerable under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act.
In Ram Saran Lall, these questions were considered clearly pointing
out relevant arears of operation and application of Section 47 and
Section 61 of the Registration Act vis-à-vis, Section 54 of the Transfer
of Property Act.
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
67. As rightly contended by Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel in these circumstances, Ex.B5 and Ex.B6 being registered
documents shall operate from the date they bear i.e. 22.03.2003 and
22.02.2003 respectively. The stamp papers used for these registered
documents, as pointed out by Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants to have such serial numbers and that they
were purchased at Ongole cannot affect their nature. These
documents were registered by the Registering Authority in terms of
Section 17 of the Registration Act and are not affected by Section 49
of the said Act.
68. These are not the instances of sale or transfer of property in
terms of either Section 54 or Section 8 of the Transfer of Property
Act. They merely acknowledged and confirmed the earlier
transactions of sale by which the first respondent had purchased
Ac.3.55 ½ cents of land covered by suit Sy.Nos.960, 933/2 and 933/1
and out of Ac.19.41 cents, covered by Ex.B2. Therefore, the
contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants castigating Ex.B5
and Ex.B6 should be rejected. They are prior to the sale under Ex.A3.
None was examined at the trial to prove Ex.B5 to Ex.B7, on behalf of
the respondents 1to 3.
69. Before entering the transaction under Ex.A1 and Ex.A3,
apparently the appellants did not apply due diligence to know the
right, title and interest of their vendors, in respect of the suit lands.
The testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is reflecting that they enquired
about these lands only after entering Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 transactions
upon securing the sale deeds under which the respondents 1 and 2
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
were claiming entire extent in the suit survey numbers. The
testimony of P.W.1 is a clear manifestation in this respect. He stated
in cross-examination that he did not try to verify in detail the family
affairs of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and his successors even after
these sale transactions. He further stated that he had no necessity
for such purpose. He further stated that by the date of these sales all
the legal heirs of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao were living
separately. He also stated that he did not know, who used to manage
the family affairs after the death of Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao.
According to D.W.1, Sri Kondapi Krishna Mohan, S/o.Ramachandra Rao
was working as Village Administrative Officer, at Kandukur and that
he was looking after other family members.
70. Similarly, P.W.1 stated that he did not know the family
background of Sri Patan Masthan Khan. He further deposed that they
did not go through the title deeds of their vendors or revenue records
prior to obtaining Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 sale deeds. He further stated that
they did not apply for pattadar passbooks and title deeds for these
lands. He went to the extent of stating that he did not have personal
knowledge of the contents of Ex.A3. He also stated that he did not
have any documentary proof relating to possession and enjoyment of
the suit lands either jointly or independently. He confirmed that
they did not independently ascertain bonafide title of their vendors
prior to Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 transactions. He claimed that they relied on
opinion of their advocate, who appeared in the trial Court on their
behalf in this matter.
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
71. The first appellant was examined as P.W.2 only to cover up the
deficiency found from the evidence of P.W.1. Particularly with
reference to due diligence required before entering the sale
transactions under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, he appeared to have had come
forward to depose. For this reason, the very first question in cross-
examination to P.W.2 was in respect of his attempt to fill up the
latches and to strengthen their case after cross-examination of
P.W.1. However, P.W.2 denied this suggestion.
72. P.W.2 also stated in cross-examination that they came to know
about their vendors only after obtaining the sale deeds. He further
stated that he did not remember from whom they verified about the
title held by their vendors to the suit lands.
73. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, the manner of securing
Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 from their vendors, getting them registered at Ongole
than at Chimakurthy, presenting these documents through a power-
of-attorney holder, viz. Nallamothu Venkateswarlu are pointed out as
the suspicious circumstances surrounding their execution.
74. The specific defence of the respondents 1 to 3 against Ex.A1 to
Ex.A3 is that they are sham, nominal and fabricated documents and
without consideration. In these circumstances, when the claim of the
appellants is that they purchased undivided right and interest in the
entire extent of the suit survey numbers from those legal heirs of the
original purchasers, viz. Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba Rao and Sri
Masthan Khan, the legal burden initially is on the appellants to
establish and to prove these transactions under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
Neither their executants were examined at the trial nor anyone
concerned to these transactions, viz. the attestors were examined.
75. Their examination is required in order to establish that as the
legal heirs of the original purchasers they did have right and interest
to the suit lands and that they did not derive any benefit out of sales
in favour of the first respondent. Mere production of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3
at the trial or relying on the nature of the defence in calling these
documents as described above, as if there is clear admission of
execution of these documents on the part of the appellants is
improper. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, an instance of failing
to examine Smt.Latha Devi one of the daughters of Sri Ramachandra
Rao is specifically pointed out.
76. The appellants cannot contend that the respondents 1 to 3
should have examined the executants of Ex.B5 to Ex.B7 nor that they
are proved. On the other hand, if their vendors had been examined
on their behalf, definitely their evidence would have brought out the
truth, in these transactions, including about the sales in favour of the
first respondent, if, for the benefit of the entire family. There is
denial of the sales covered by Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and their effect, from
the respondents 1 to 3, though it is not denied that vendors
thereunder are the legal heirs of the respective original owners.
Ex.B5 to Ex.B7 did not establish Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 sales in favour of the
appellants.
77. In the given facts and circumstances of this case when the
claim is set forth by the purchasers from the legal heirs of Sri Kondapi
Venkata Subba Rao and Sri Masthan Khan for partition and division of
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
the lands covered by Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 out of total extent covered by
suit survey numbers, it is all the more necessary and an indispensable
necessity of inviolable nature to have had examined their vendors. It
is a serious lacuna and deficiency in the case set up by the
appellants, fatally affecting their claim and going to the root of the
matter.
78. In these circumstances, the inference to draw is that there is
no legal and acceptable proof adduced by the appellants at the trial
of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 sale deeds. Contentions advanced on behalf of the
appellants that the sales covered by Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 should be
accepted in respect of Ac.0.34 cents and Ac.0.71 cents, in this
backdrop, should be rejected.
79. In respect of Ex.A2 sale, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy relied on effect of Section 6 and
Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The basis for such
contention is the vendors under Ex.A2 succeeding to that part of the
estate relating to Sri Kondapi Ramachandra Rao. This contention also
cannot stand for the reasons assigned supra.
80. The contention of the respondents 1 to 3 is that the
respondents 5 to 15 colluded with the appellants and at the instance
of M/s.Pokarna Granites, a false claim is made against them by way
of this litigation.
81. The second appellant was General Manager of M/s.Pokarna
Granites admittedly for about 14½ years. Material on record makes
out that he was pursuing O.S.No.16 of 2003 on the file of the Court of
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
learned I Additional District Judge, Ongole, on behalf of M/s.Pokarna
Granites, which was obviously interested in earlier litigation in
O.S.No.464 of 1995. There is however admission of P.W.1 that the
respondents 1 to 3 compromised with the plaintiff therein, who is the
16th respondent herein in final decree proceedings in I.A.No.2361 of
2001 in O.S.No.464 of 1995 on the file of the Court of learned
Principle Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.
82. Having regard to these circumstances, fomenting and fanning
the litigation by M/s.Pokarna Granites in this manner cannot be ruled
out.
83. It is also to be noted that when the sale transactions under
Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were of March and May 2003, the appellants had
chosen to institute the suit on 07.08.2002. Thus, it is manifest that
these sale deeds were procured only for the purpose of bringing out
this claim against the respondents 1 to 3.
85. Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants also contended that in view of earlier litigation in
O.S.No.464 of 1995, where the claim of the 16th respondent was
accepted throughout, the judgments therein have relevancy in terms
of Section 13 of Indian Evidence Act and that the appellants are
entitled to rely on such material particularly when the respondents 1
to 3 were parties to such proceedings. In support of this contention,
reliance is placed on TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS v.
K.M.KRISHNAIAH6 . This proposition of law cannot be disputed nor it
is disputed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Facts in given case
(1998) 3 SCC 331
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
should also be borne in mind and parity cannot be drawn in between
the outcome in the above litigation to which the respondents 1 to 3
and respondent No.16 were parties and this matter on hand. The
effect of the compromise as referred to above in final decree
proceedings, is a pointer in this context. What was ruled in the
earlier litigation, basing on facts and material cannot be the
foundation for the claim of the appellants in the present matter,
where they miserably failed to adduce appropriate evidence to
support their case.
86. Reliance is also placed by Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel in VINEETHA SHARMA v. RAKESHA SHARMA7.
Contentions are advanced by learned Senior Counsel basing on this
ruling that the female coparceners are entitled for their share in
undivided properties particularly in view of Section 6 of Hindu
Succession Act as per the amendment brought out in the year 2005.
Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that any
sales prior to 20.12.2004 are not affected by Section 6(1) of Hindu
Succession Act as is brought out by the amendment of the year 2005.
Since the case of the appellants for partition and division of the suit
lands from and out of total extent of Ac.19.44 cents is not acceptable
and partiable nature of this extent is not established by the
appellants, this ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court did not offer
assistance to their contention.
87. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the entire material, it
is held that the appellants failed to make out that they are entitled
2020(9) SCC PAGE 1
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
to seek partition of the suit lands in the manner they suggested, out
of the total extent of Ac.19.44 cents in Sy.Nos.960, 933/1 and 933/2
of Chimakurthy village. Nor it is an instance, where there is proof
that the alleged vendors of the appellants were the female
coparceners having subsisting right and interest in the alleged
undivided share of original purchasers, viz. Sri Kondapi Venkata Subba
Rao and Sri Masthan Khan. Hence, the claim of the appellants
deserves to be rejected. Thus, this point is answered in favour of the
respondents 1 to 3 and against the appellants.
88. POINT No.2: In view of the findings on point No.1, since the
appellants failed to make out their claim for partition against the
respondents 1 to 3, they cannot have a right to injunct them from
carrying on mining operations from the entire extent covered by suit
survey numbers. The material on record did not establish that the
appellants stood as co-owners or co-sharers in relation to these lands
vis-à-vis the respondents 1 and 2, nor is there any proof that the
mining activity undertaken by then through their corporate entity, viz
the third respondent is detrimental to their interest, which cannot be
compensated in monetary terms. Nor it is established that there was
any invasion of alleged rights of the appellants on account of this
activity by the respondents 1 to 3. Therefore, the appellants are not
entitled for permanent injunction as requested against the
respondents 1 to 3. Thus, this point is held against the appellants and
in favour of the respondents 1 to 3.
89. POINT No.3: Having regarding to the material on record and
evidence, there are no reasons to interfere with the ultimate
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge in dismissing the suit.
This appeal, therefore should fail confirming the decree and
judgment of the trial Court.
90. In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the decree
and judgment of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Ongole, in O.S.No.186 of 2003 dated 02.06.2014. No costs. Interim
orders if any, stand vacated. All pending petitions, stand closed.
___________________
M. VENKATA RAMANA, J
Dt: 20.10.2021
Rns
MVR,J
A.S.No.537 of 2014
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
APPEAL SUIT No.537 OF 2014
Date:20.10.2021
Rns
