1.Heard.
2.These two appeals arise out of rival claims of the NEETU KHAJURIA chunk of land admeasuring 4 acres and 16 guntas located at village Dasnapur.
3.For the sake of convenience, the genealogical table of the parties is reproduced hereinbelow: -“Metpalli Ramanna (died pre-1949) | | Metpalli Rajanna (died in 1983) | | | First Marriage Second Marriage (with Narsamma, who (with Lasum Bai, predeceased Rajanna) Plaintiff, died 2015) | | | | Muthaiah Rajamma (D1, died in 2014) (D2, died during appeal)”
4.Facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for
disposal of the appeals are as below.
4.1. The original land holder i.e., Metpalli Ramanna
died intestate prior to 1949. The total landed property
owned by Metpalli Ramanna is described below: -
Survey Village Description of
Nos. Properties
28 Dasnapur Ac. 12-32 Guntas Dry
Land.
6 Mavala Ac. 1-25 Guntas Wet
Land.
9 Mavala Ac. 1-13 Guntas Wet
Land.
1/84 Savaragaon Ac. 2-34 Guntas Dry
Land.
Total 18 acres 06 guntas
4.2. Metpalli Rajanna, the legal heir of Ramanna
married Narsamma and from their wedlock, two
children, namely, Muthaiah1 and Rajamma were
born. Narsamma died during the lifetime of M.
Rajanna who contracted second marriage with
Lasum Bai2 who did not bear any child. M. Rajanna
expired in the year 1983 and his daughter Rajamma
also died intestate on which, a dispute over the right
1 Hereinafter, referred to as “defendant-Muthaiah”. 2 Hereinafter, referred to as “plaintiff-Lasum Bai”.
to property arose between plaintiff-Lasum Bai on the
one side and defendant-Muthaiah on the other.
4.3. As per the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, M. Rajanna
anticipated the disputes between her and his son
from the 1st marriage i.e., defendant-Muthaiah and to
avoid the same, he made an oral family arrangement
distributing his properties as below: -
Lasum Bai 1. Sy. No. 28 of Dasnapur Village-
Ac. 6-16 Gts out of Ac.12-32 Gts. (2nd wife of M. Rajanna)
Mavala Village, out of Ac. 2-38 Gts.
3. Cattle shed bearing Panchayat
No. 3-4 situated at Savaragaon
Village.
Muthaiah 1. Sy. No. 28 of Dasnapur Village-
Ac. 6-16 Gts out of Ac.12-32 Gts.
Mavala Village, out of Ac. 2-38 Gts.
Rajamma 1. Sy. No. 1/84 of Savaragaon
Village, Ac. 2-34 gts. (widowed daughter)
Mavala Village., out of Ac. 2-38 Gts.
4.4. M. Rajanna also executed a registered Will in
favour of plaintiff-Lasum Bai recognizing the share of
defendant-Muthaiah in the joint family properties.
The said Will was registered on 24th July, 1974.
4.5. The case set up on behalf of plaintiff-Lasum Bai
in the suit was that she was granted the rights over
6 acres 16 guntas from the chunk of land in Survey
No. 28 of the Village Dasnapur which was located
towards the north of the undivided plot of land
whereas, defendant-Muthaiah was granted 6 acres
16 guntas of land towards south of the said plot. The
said plot is the bone of contention between the
parties.
4.6. Admittedly, the plaintiff-Lasum Bai sold two
acres of land from her purported share to one
Sanjeeva Reddy vide registered sale deed dated 27th August, 1987. The said registered sale deed was
never questioned before any forum and remains
unchallenged. The plaintiff-Lasum Bai had entered
into another agreement on 15th July, 1987, for selling
her remaining 4 acres and 16 guntas land located in
Survey No. 28 of the Dasnapur Village3 to one
Janardhan Reddy.
4.7. Aggrieved by this agreement, defendant-
Muthaiah filed an injunction suit being Original Suit
3 Hereinafter, referred to as “disputed property”.
No. 101 of 1987 seeking an injunction against
plaintiff-Lasum Bai and to restrain her from selling
the properties which came to her share under the
registered Will including the plot admeasuring 4
acres 16 guntas. Vide judgment and decree dated 6th July, 1990, the said injunction suit was decreed in
favour of defendant-Muthaiah. However, it was
clearly recorded in the judgment of the District
Munsif, Adilabad that the title of plaintiff-Lasum Bai
was not being examined in the said injunction suit
and it would be open for her to file a separate suit for
declaration of title since she was claiming ownership
over the plot in question.
4.8. Accordingly, plaintiff-Lasum Bai filed a suit
being Original Suit No. 2 of 1991 for declaration of
her title over the suit schedule properties i.e., the
properties which came to her share under the
registered Will4.
4.9. Defendant-Muthaiah set up a case in his
written statement that the properties were joint
ancestral properties and as Metpalli Rajanna died
4 Hereinafter, referred to as “suit schedule properties”.
intestate in the year 1983, he became the sole co-
parcener of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
4.10. Plaintiff-Lasum Bai based her claim on the
registered Will dated 24th July, 1974 which was
marked as Ext.-A1. She examined two witnesses in
support of her case. Defendant-Muthaiah appeared
and deposed as DW-1 and in his statement, he made
some significant admissions. The relevant extracts
from his deposition are quoted hereinbelow: -
“Chief Examination:
My grandfather Ramanna performed my
marriage and the marriage of my elder sister 2nd
defendant. 2nd defendant is a widow and she is
residing with me. There were no divisions of the
properties during the life time of my father. My
father and myself were residing jointly. Myself
and my father were jointly cultivating the
properties mentioned by me. My father did not
execute any will. My father had not shown any
will to me, 2nd defendant and to the villagers. I
am presently residing in Savaragaon
village. Since 12 years I am living separately
from plaintiff. We are living separately
because my wife, is not on good terms with
the plaintiff. My father in order to save the
family from disputes allowed my mother
plaintiff to cultivate some part of the
agricultural lands. In Dist. Munsiffs court,
Adilabad I filed a suit against the present
plaintiff and in that suit, she came forward with
the plea that my father had executed a will. My
father had not executed any will. The will is a got
up document. I have five daughters. 3 of them
are married. In order to meet the expenses of
my daughters marriage I converted the land
at Dasnapur into plots and (sic) I sold about
10 plots @ Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/ per plot.
The size of the plot is 40 to 50 feet. The
contention of the plaintiff that she is
cultivating Dasnapur land and Mavala land is
not correct. She has given those lands on
batai basis to others. Cattle, gold, silvers, cart
and Nizam coins and other movable properties is
with my mother i.e. plaintiff. Her claim that my
father had executed a will deed in her favour and
that she is the rightful owner of all the properties
is not true. When my father allowed the plaintiff
to cultivate the lands to avoid family disputes as
state of my father's health was not good.
Cross Examination for the plaintiff:
…… My father allowed me to cultivate half of
the land on the Southern side. My father
asked her to cultivate 4 guntas of land in
Mavala and asked me to cultivate 6 guntas in
Mavala. My father made this arrangement on
the date of his death (Arrangement relating to
my cultivation on the Southern side and the
plaintiff on the Northern side in Mavala
village). My father did this arrangement in the
presence of elders. There were no elders
witness again says. I do not know whether my
father made arrangement about 20 years back
asking my mother to cultivate half of the
land in Dasnapur on Northern side…….
I have sold plots in Dasnapur on the southern
side which were under my occupation. It is
true that plaintiff sold 2 acres of land in
Northern portion of Dasnapur land to one P.
Sanjeeva Reddy under registered sale deed.
Those 2 acres of land is in possession of
Sanjeeva Reddy even before I filed the suit.
The 3rd defendant has been cultivating 4 acres
16 guntas in Dasnapur village which was in
possession of the plaintiff since (sic) the time
of my filing the suit in Munsiff's court. My
mother has not sold Ac. 4-16 guntas to
Janardhan Reddy 3rd defendant…..
I have come to know that patta for the land in
Dasnapur to the extent of half is in the name of
the plaintiff. This I came to know after filing the
suit in Munsiffs office. I came to know that she
filed Pahanies in the Munsiffs court when I filled
the suit in the court, I came to know that she
filed Pahanies in the Munsiffs court when I filed
the suit in that court, showing that she was
holding patta to the extent of half. I have shown
myself as pattadar to the extent of half of the
entire extent of the southern side. ....... My
father literate. I can identify the signature of
my father. The signatures shown to me in Ex.
A-1 signatures in all the sheets (6) are that of
my father.”
(Emphasis supplied)
4.11. The suit filed by plaintiff-Lasum Bai came to
be decreed by the District Judge, Adilabad5 vide judgment and decree dated 15th November, 1994 with
the following pertinent findings: -
i. That the plaintiff-Lasum Bai had
established her case that M. Rajanna had
5 Hereinafter, referred to as “trial Court”.
executed the Will (Ext.-A1) in a sound
disposing state of mind.
ii. That in absence of any evidence to the
contrary, the admission of the first
defendant that M. Rajanna had allowed
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to cultivate their
respective portions of land, distinct from
each other and that they had been in
exclusive possession over their respective
portions of land and made it clear that the
family arrangement pleaded by the
plaintiff-Lasum Bai was true.
4.12. With these conclusions arrived at after
thorough appraisal of evidence on record, the trial
Court proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the
plaintiff-Lasum Bai and granted a declaration that
the plaintiff-Lasum Bai was the true owner and had
exclusive title over the suit schedule properties
mentioned in the plaint and also granted her
permanent injunction against defendant Nos. 1 and
2 i.e., defendant-Muthaiah and his sister, Rajamma.
4.13. Being aggrieved, the defendant-Muthaiah,
along with his sister, Rajamma preferred an appeal
being Appeal Suit No. 178 of 1995 in the High Court
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad6. The
High Court, vide judgment dated 23rd January, 2014 allowed the appeal in part and set aside the trial
Court’s judgment and decree dated 15th November,
1994 holding that the defendant-Muthaiah was
entitled to 3/4th share and the plaintiff-Lasum Bai
was entitled to only 1/4th share in the suit schedule
properties upon death of M. Rajanna and Rajamma
and restricted the plaintiff-Lasum Bai’s entitlement
only to that extent. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court determined the rights of the parties in the
following terms: -
“31) In the result, the appeal is allowed in part
to the extent, while setting aside the trial Court's
decree and judgment in granting declaration of
title and injunction for entire plaint schedule
properties of the present suit in favour of the
plaintiff (appeal-1st respondent Lasumbai);
however, by holding that as those are part of the
joint family properties of 1st defendant who got
3/4th share and the plaintiff got 1/4th share from
death of Rajanna and from death of Rajamma
respectively, the plaintiff's entitlement is only to
that extent so to declare her title with no relief of
injunction since undivided, thus by granting
preliminary decree for partition for said shares of
plaintiff and 1st defendant respectively, so as to
enable them to apply for final decree for division
6 Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
of the entire properties in which the plaint
schedule are part and in so dividing plaintiff's
1/4th share to consider to the extent possible in
the plaint schedule respective items by equity for
allotment in S.No.28/1 of Dasnapur village
Southern side 1/4th out of the total extent of
Ac.12-31 guntas, firstly upon the vendee for
Ac.2-00 therein and for any other extent to claim
by the 3rd defendant subject to enforcement of
the so called contract for sale between plaintiff
and said 3rd defendant; so also subject to proof
of alienations in other extents to claim such
equities by such vendees out of the 1/4th share
of the plaintiff while dividing so to allot. There is
no order as to costs in the appeal.”
4.14. The said judgment of the High Court has been
challenged by plaintiff-Lasum Bai (appellant No. 1)
and appellants Nos. 2-6 being the legal
representatives of the purchaser i.e., Janardhan
Reddy before this Court by way of Civil Appeal No.
5921 of 2015. However, plaintiff-Lasum Bai
(appellant No. 1) died on 17th January, 2015 without
any legal representatives. Upon her death, appellants
Nos. 2-6 being the legal representatives of Janardhan
Reddy preferred an application under Order XXII
Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking
permission to represent the estate of plaintiff-Lasum
Bai to the extent of 4 acres and 16 guntas i.e., the
portion of plot located in Survey No. 28 of the
Dasnapur Village which was purportedly sold by
plaintiff-Lasum Bai to Janardhan Reddy vide registered sale deed dated 22nd November, 1994.
4.15. Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015 came to be filed
by the legal representatives of defendant-Muthaiah
who have challenged the direction of the High Court
granting 1/4th share of the suit scheduled property to
plaintiff-Lasum Bai.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants: -
5.Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants being the legal representatives of Janardhan Reddy and representing the estate of plaintiff-Lasum Bai, vehemently and fervently contended that even going by the genealogy of the parties and assuming that the Will (Ext.-A1) was not in existence, the plaintiffLasum Bai would get 1/3rd share of the properties owned by M. Rajanna which would be much more than the area of the disputed property. 5.1. He further urged that the registered Will (Ext.-A1) has been proved by leading unimpeachable evidence. The defendant-Muthaiah admitted the signatures of M. Rajanna on the Will and thus, undeniably the plaintiff-Lasum Bai inherited the suit schedule property under the said Will and the sale made by her to appellant Nos. 2 to 6 being the legal representatives of Janardhan Reddy is valid and cannot be called into question. 5.2. He further submitted that as per the evidence of the plaintiff-Lasum Bai and the admissions appearing in the statement of the defendantMuthaiah referred to supra, existence of the registered Will and oral family settlement is well established. 5.3. The plaintiff sold 2 acres out of her share of 6 acres and 16 guntas land in the village Dasnapur to Sanjeeva Reddy by a registered sale deed dated 27th August, 1987. The said sale deed though very much in knowledge of the defendant-Muthaiah, was never challenged before any forum. Hence, apparently, defendant-Muthaiah has acquiesced to the right of plaintiff-Lasum Bai over the suit schedule properties. He urged that the High Court clearly fell in error in interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court. 5.4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the defendant-Muthaiah had earlier filed suit for injunction (Original Suit No. 101 of 1987) against plaintiff-Lasum Bai wherein he specifically referred to the sale deed executed in favour of Sanjeeva Reddy by plaintiff-Lasum Bai and consciously chose not to assail the said sale deed. Thus, the defendantMuthaiah is estopped by law from questioning the right of plaintiff-Lasum Bai to sell the disputed property. On these grounds, learned senior counsel implored the Court to set aside the impugned judgment; restore the judgment of the trial Court and allow Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015. Submissions on behalf of the respondents: -
6.E-converso, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned senior counsel for the appellants. He urged that the unpartitioned land was owned by Ramanna who expired before 1949. Thus, all properties owned by Ramanna upon his death devolved in equal shares upon M. Rajanna and defendant-Muthaiah being the two male coparceners. He submitted that the registered Will which was executed by M. Rajanna in favour of plaintiff-Lasum Bai, defendant-Muthaiah and Rajamma has no sanctity in the eyes of law because the said Will was executed by M. Rajanna in the capacity of the owner of the entire land in question whereas the fact remains that the land was not the self-acquired property of the testator i.e., M. Rajanna. Thus, as per learned counsel, the plaintiff-Lasum Bai did not gain any legal right whatsoever over the property under the registered Will. 6.1. He further submitted that the High Court rightly held that the family settlement could not be acted upon because the said settlement granted title over the property in question to the parties and being unregistered, it could not be admitted in evidence for any purpose whatsoever. 6.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the suit (Original Suit No. 101 of 1987) filed by the defendantMuthaiah was decreed and plaintiff-Lasum Bai was perpetually injuncted from selling the land in question. The said judgment was never challenged and has attained finality. Hence, the sale deed in respect of the disputed property executed by plaintiffLasum Bai in favour of Janardan Reddy has no sanctity in the eyes of law. 6.3. He urged that the judgment rendered by the High Court is based on sound reasoning. The High Court has adverted to the prevailing facts in detail and reached to an unimpeachable conclusion that the plaintiff-Lasum Bai did not gain any right whatsoever under the disputed Will or the so-called oral family settlement. Despite the aforesaid findings, the High Court erred in granting 1/4th share to plaintiff-Lasum Bai in the joint family properties which is ex facie sustainable in facts and law. He, thus, implored the Court to dismiss the appeal jointly filed by plaintiff-Lasum Bai and the legal representatives of Janardhan Reddy and allow the appeal filed by defendant-Muthaiah thereby setting aside the judgment of the High Court to the extent that it granted 1/4th share to plaintiff-Lasum Bai in the joint family properties. Discussion and Conclusion: -
7.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record.
8.At the outset, we may note that it is an admitted position as emerging from the record that after the death of M. Ramanna, the revenue entries (Khasra Pahunis) of the land in question were entered in the name of M. Rajanna. This Court has been apprised that as per the prevailing revenue laws in the State of Andhra Pradesh, these entries provide evidence of ownership over the land. The subject suit was filed by plaintiff-Lasum Bai specifically basing her claim on the registered Will (Ext.-A1) dated 24th July, 1974 and the oral family settlement.
9.The Will is a registered document. The defendant-Muthaiah in his evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing on the said Will (Ext.-A1) to be that of his father, i.e., M. Rajanna. The Will distributed the properties in defined proportions between the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, defendantMuthaiah and Rajamma (widowed daughter of M. Rajanna). There is ample material on record to establish that M. Rajanna anticipated that the relations between plaintiff-Lasum Bai and defendantMuthaiah were not congenial and that is why, in order to avoid future conflicts, he divided his properties by way of a family settlement and bequeathed a share thereof to plaintiff-Lasum Bai, while leaving the major share to his son i.e., the defendant-Muthaiah. The distribution of the properties, as per the family settlement (regarding which oral evidence was led), and the registered Will is almost in the same proportions. The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption regarding genuineness thereof. The trial Court accepted the execution of the Will based on the evidence led before it. As the Will is a registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof, who would be defendant-Muthaiah in this case, to establish that it was not executed in the manner as alleged or that there were suspicious circumstances which made the same doubtful. However, the defendant-Muthaiah in his evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing on the registered Will to be those of his father, M. Rajanna. He also admitted the fact that the plaintiffLasum Bai was in possession of 6 acres and 16 guntas of land, which fell into her share as per the Will. In this background, the trial Court was right in holding that M. Rajanna made a fair distribution of his tangible assets amongst his legal heirs by executing the Will dated 24th July, 1974 and so also the oral family settlement. We are of the view that the evidence available on record fortifies the existence and persuasive nature of the oral family settlement which is countenanced by the factum of the possession of the suit schedule properties including the disputed property, which was admittedly with the plaintiff-Lasum Bai and subsequently the purchaser i.e., Janardhan Reddy.
10.The genuineness of the Will is also beyond doubt because it not only confers the right and title over a part of the land owned by the Testator, M. Rajanna to the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, but it also grants a lion’s share of the property to the defendantMuthaiah. Had it been the intention of M. Rajanna to deprive the defendant-Muthaiah of the land or if the Will had been manipulated, then the defendantMuthaiah could have been left out completely from gaining any benefits under the Will.
11.In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm view that the trial Court was fully justified in decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-Lasum Bai and granting her absolute rights over the suit schedule properties including the disputed property admeasuring 4 acres and 16 guntas which was sold to Janardhan Reddy vide registered sale deed dated 22nd November, 1994. The view taken by the trial Court being based on apropos appreciation of the evidence and the prevailing legal principles is unassailable in facts as well as in law.
12.The High Court, manifestly erred while interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court and substituting its own findings by reducing the share of plaintiff-Lasum Bai in the suit schedule properties. Resultantly, the impugned judgment dated 23rd January, 2014, rendered by the High Court does not stand to scrutiny and the same is hereby reversed and set aside. The judgment and decree dated 15th November, 1994 rendered by the trial Court is, consequently, restored.
13.Accordingly, Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015 is allowed and the Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
14.Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (VIKRAM NATH) (SANDEEP MEHTA) NEW DELHI; JULY 21, 2025.