HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY S.A.No.983 of 2013 Date : 6-6-2014 Between :
Chidipudi Seshamma ..
Appellant And Palaparthi Annapoornamma and another ..
Respondents Counsel for appellant : Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi for Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for respondents : --
The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and decree dated 11-4-2011 in A.S.No.38/2010 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Ongole, whereby he has confirmed the Judgment and decree dated 18-1- 2010 in O.S.No.264/2005 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.
I have heard Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned Counsel appearing for Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the appellant, and perused the record.
The appellant has filed the above mentioned suit for cancellation of settlement deed dated 26-6-2004 executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1. Before referring to the facts, the relationship between the parties needs to be stated. The appellant is the daughter-in-law of respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 is the daughter of respondent No.2. The appellant is also related to respondent No.2 through her father Narasa Reddy, i.e., respondent No.2 is the sister of Narasa Reddy. Thus, respondent No.2 is the paternal aunt of the appellant.
It is the pleaded case of the appellant that her father Narasa Reddy and one Venkateswarlu Reddy are natural brothers and respondent No.2 is their sister; that the property in question fell to the share of Narasa Reddy in a partition between himself and his brother Venkateswarlu Reddy and that Narasa Reddy in turn has orally gifted the property to the appellant in the year 1983 and later he has executed a registered Will in her favour on 29-9-2003. A certified copy of the Will was marked as Ex.A-6, subject to proof and relevancy. The appellant has thus asserted that she has become the absolute owner of the suit property under registered Will executed by her father.
The defendants resisted the claim of the appellant. It is their pleaded case that in the year 1968, in a family arrangement, the suit property was allotted to respondent No.2 by her brothers Narasa Reddy and Venkateswarlu Reddy and that respondent No.2 has executed registered settlement deed in favour of respondent No.1 on 26-7-2004 (Ex.A-4). The respondents have accordingly pleaded that the appellant has no right and title over the suit property.
Having regard to the respective pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled as prayed for?
2. Whether the settlement deed executed by the D2 in favour of D1 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?
3. Whether D2 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as per the partition deed dt. 26.6.1968?
4. To what relief?
On behalf of the appellant, she has examined herself as PW-1 and examined PW-2 and PW-3. She has filed Exs.A- 1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.2 was examined as DW-1, besides examining DW-2 and DW-
3. They have filed Exs.B-1 to B-7. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court answered Issue No.1 in favour of the respondents and against the appellant and Issue Nos.2 and 3 against the respondents. The lower appellate Court has confirmed the Judgment and decree of the trial Court.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below have committed grave error in not properly considering Exs.A-1 and A-2, the pattadar passbook and title deed, respectively, held by the appellant. She has further stated that having held that respondent No.2 has not established her right over the suit property, the Courts below ought to have set-aside the settlement deed.
From the findings rendered by both the Courts below, it is evident that the Will set up by the appellant was not believed as she has not proved the Will in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as at least one attesting witness has not been examined to prove the Will. Once the Will is eschewed from consideration, the appellant cannot claim exclusive right over the property. However, this Court hastens to add that in the light of the findings rendered by the trial Court on Issue Nos.2 and 3, the appellant is entitled to pursue her remedies in order to claim a share in the property as the successor-in-interest to her father Narasa Reddy.
As regards the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that Exs.A-1 and A-2 prove the right of the appellant, I do not find any merit therein. Section 6 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 only raises a presumption as to the correctness of the entries in the Record of Rights. This presumption is however rebuttable. The pattadar passbook and title deed are not documents of title and a person’s right over the land cannot be declared only based on those documents. Unless the appellant is able to establish that she has succeeded to the property either through testamentary disposition or otherwise, Exs.A-1 and A-2 cannot constitute the sole basis for declaring the title of the appellant. The evidence adduced by the appellant was not sufficient to show that she is the exclusive owner of the property. On a careful consideration of the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out any case for interference with the findings of the Courts below. However, as observed hereinbefore, in view of the adverse findings on Issue Nos.2 and 3, qua the respondents, the appellant is left free to work out her remedies for claiming her share in the suit property.
Subject to the above observation, the Second Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Second Appeal, SAMP No.2573/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 6-6-2014 AM