S.A. No. 234 of 2017. Case: Tammana Satya Kristu Ramesh Vs Tadikonda Surya Venkata and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)

Case NumberS.A. No. 234 of 2017
JudgesM.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
IssueTransfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53A
Judgement DateApril 13, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)

Judgment:

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

  1. This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dt. 16.11.2016 in A.S. No. 225 of 2010 of the VI Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Narsapur reversing the judgment and decree dt. 14.10.2008 in O.S. No. 94 of 2002 of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur.

  2. The appellant is 2nd defendant in the suit.

  3. The 1st respondent is the adopted son of one Venkateswarlu and Seetharatnam under a registered Adoption Deed executed on 02.06.1969. Venkateswarlu died in 1971 leaving 1st respondent and his adopted mother Seetharatnam as his legal heirs.

  4. The appellant's father, Subba Rao, is the brother of Seetharatnam; the 2nd respondent is wife of said Subba Rao; and respondents 3 & 4 are other children of Subba Rao. Pleadings in Plaint of 1st respondent/Plaintiff:

  5. 1st respondent/plaintiff contended that his adoptive father, Venkateswarlu, was the owner of the property and since the 1st respondent was a minor and his adoptive mother Seetharatnam is widow, and could not look after the cultivation personally and since the property is situated in Ravipadu of Poduru Mandal, where the defendants are residing, Subba Rao, her brother, came forward to assist the 1st respondent and his mother to take care of the property and in fact the property was leased out to Subba Rao under an oral lease.

  6. Subsequently, Subba Rao died and mother of 1st respondent/plaintiff also died on 05.01.2001.

  7. The 1st respondent contended that after the death of Subba Rao, since the defendants were in grief, the 1st respondent and his mother did not insist for payment of rent.

  8. Subsequently, the 1st respondent became major and became capable of cultivating the land, and he issued legal notice on 09.11.1999(Ex. A1) to the appellant and other respondents calling upon them to pay arrears of rent and sought delivery of property.

  9. On receiving the same, under Ex. A2 dt. 27.11.1999, appellant and 2nd respondent gave a reply enclosing Ex. B2 agreement of sale dt. 26.01.1972.

  10. The 1st respondent and his mother denied the execution of the said document as well as another promissory note dt. 19.06.1969 relied upon by the appellant and respondents 2 to 4.

  11. The 1st respondent contended that the appellant and respondents 2 to 4 were in possession and enjoyment of the property only as tenants but not as owners and that Subba Rao, through whom the appellant and respondents 2 to 4 are claiming, during his life time never informed about the said promissory note or Ex. B2. They also denied their signatures on the said document(Ex. B2).

  12. Therefore, the 1st respondent sought relief of declaration of title and also recovery of possession in O.S. No. 94 of 2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Narsapur. The Written Statement of appellant/2nd defendant:

  13. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT