* THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L.

NARASIMHA REDDY
+SECOND APPEAL No.1383 of 2004
% 05-01-2012.
Between:
# Maturi Rangaiah
Appellant
And
$ Mutyala Venkata Lakshamma (died) and others
Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners

Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar

^ Counsel for the Respondents :

Mr. A. Giridhar Rao
Mr. P. Venkat Rao

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases referred

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

SECOND APPEAL No.1383 OF 2004
ORDER:

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.84 of 1989 on the file of

the Subordinate Judge, Markapur, is the appellant. He filed the suit

for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit

schedule properties comprising of Item No.1: a House at
Nekhunambad Village and Item No.2: Acs.3-74 cents of land at
Salakalaveedu village of Prakasam District. He pleaded that item
No.2 and the eastern portion of the item No.1 fell to his share in a
partition that took place in the year 1966 and that thereafter, he
purchased the western portion of item No.1 from one Mr. Maturi
Subbarangaiah and ever since then he is in exclusive possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. According to him,
the
1st respondent was the kept mistress and respondent Nos.2 and 3
(defendant Nos.2 and 3) are the daughters, of late Maturi
Subbarangaiah.

Respondent

Nos.4

to

are

the

legal

representatives of the 1st respondent.

2. The appellant pleaded that the entries in the revenue
records and the proceedings that ensued before the Land Reforms
Tribunal confirm his ownership and possession over the property.
His grievance was that one week prior to the filing of the suit, the
respondents and their followers, who were shown as defendant
Nos.6 to 10 in the suit, threatened to dispossess him from the
property.
3. 2nd defendant filed a written statement i.e. the
2nd respondent herein, and the same was adopted by the other
contesting defendants. According to them, the schedule properties
are the self- acquisitions of Maturi Subbarangaiah and that the
appellant is the stranger to the Maturi family much less related to
Subbarangaiah. According to them, the surname of the appellant is

Darimadugu and not Maturi, and that he is a native of Racherla

village. They further pleaded that the father of the appellant came
to the house of Subbarangaiah as a farm servant. It was alleged
that Maturi Rangasayamma wife of Subbaraigaiah filed O.S.No.60
of 1971 in the court of District Munsif, Giddalur for maintenance for
herself and her daughter, 3rd respondent herein, and that the
appellant

managed

to

get

certain

documents

filed

by

Subbarangaiah making him to believe that unless partition is

pleaded, charge may be created against all his properties. It was
also pleaded that Subbarangiaah executed a Will on 09-01-1984 in
favour of the 1st respondent bequeathing the suit schedule
properties.

They pleaded that the appellant was never in the

possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties and that he

has no concern whatever.
4. The trial court dismissed the suit through judgment, dated
17-04-1996. The appellant filed A.S.No.138 of 1996 in the Court of
IV Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ongole.

The

appeal was dismissed on 30-06-2004. Hence, this Second Appeal.

5. M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that his client filed various documents such as, the orders
of the Land Reforms Tribunal (Ex.A-1), sale deed executed by
Subba Rangaiah in favour of the appellant (Ex.A-2), certified copy
of deposition in O.S. No.60 of 1971 (Ex.A5) and other documents;
and still the relief was not granted. He contends that excessive
importance was given to certain proceedings initiated before the
revenue authorities that the approach adopted by the trial Court and
the lower appellate court cannot be countenanced in law.

6. Sri A. Giridhar Rao & P. Venkat Rao, learned counsels for

the respondents, on the other hand, submit that the suit was filed as
a speculative measure and that the falsity of the claim in the plaint
is evident from the fact that though the appellant was neither
coparcener nor co-owner of late Subbaranaigah, partition was
pleaded between them. They further submit that the trial Court and
the lower appellate Court found that item No.1 of the schedule
property on the one hand and the one said to have been purchased
under Ex.A-2 are different from each other and that the appellant
never acquired any title over item No.2 of the schedule property. It
is also urged that the appellant made an effort to knock away the
property of Subbarangiah by taking advantage of his acquaintance
with him, as well as the differences between Subbarangaiah and
his wife.
7. The suit was filed for the reliefs of declaration of title and
injunction in respect of the schedule properties.

While the

appellant pleaded that the properties have fallen to his share in a

family partition that took place in the year 1966, the respondents
flatly denied his entitlement to the suit properties. A detailed written
statement was filed narrating the manner in which the appellant got
acquaintance with the family of Subbarangaiah and the attempt
said to have been made by him, to knock away the properties.
8.

The trial court framed the following issues for

consideration:
1.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the

declaration of his title over the plaint
schedule property as prayed for?

2.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for

permanent injunction restraining the

defendants from entering upon plaint

schedule properties and dispossession the
plaintiff therefrom or from interfering with the
possession and enjoyment of the same?
3.

Whether the will dated 09-01-1994

alleged to have been executed by late
Subbarangaih is true, valid and binding on
plaintiff?

4.

Whether the alleged admissions made

by late Maturi Subbarangaiah are true, valid
and binding on defendant Nos.1 to 3 and if
so, what are their effect?

5.

Whether the sale deed, dated 22-061989, executed by defendant No.1 in favour
of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is true, valid and
binding on the plaintiff?

6.

Whether the cause of action set up in

the plaint is true?

7.

Whether the defendant Nos.1 and 4 to

10 are necessary parties to the suit?

9. On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined

and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were filed.

On behalf of the respondents,

DWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-8 were filed.

10. The trial Court appointed a Commissioner. The report
and the plan submitted by the Commissioner, were taken on record
as Exs.C-1 and C-2. Ex.X-1 is the entry in the Admission Register.
11. Upon dismissal of the suit, the appellant herein filed
A.S.No.138 of 1996.

The lower appellate court framed the

following points for its consideration:1.

Whether the suit is barred under Section 58 of

the Limitation Act?

2.

Whether the plaintiff can question the

genuineness of Ex.B1 will dated 09-01-1984?

3.

Whether Ex.B1 Will, dated 09-01-1984 is true,

valid and binding on the plaintiff?

4.

Whether the partition pleaded by the plaintiff is

true, valid and binding on the defendants?

5.

Whether the plaintiff was in possession of suit

property as on the date of suit or earlier?

The appeal was dismissed.

12. The basic premise on which the appellant claimed the
relief of declaration of title was that half of the item No.1 and the
entire item No.2 of the schedule property have fallen to his share in
a family partition that is said to have taken place in the year 1966.
Remaining half of the item No.1 was said to have been purchased
by him through Ex.A-2.
13. An individual can certainly acquire title to an item of
property, if it has fallen to his share in a partition. If the partition is
through a decree of a Court or a written document, filing of the
decree or the document, as the case may be, would go a very long
way in establishing the title. If on the other hand, the partition is
oral, the evidence to prove it, can be adduced. Such evidence may
comprise of the depositions of the persons, who were allotted
shares, or those acquainted with the partition or the revenue
records, that reflect the partition.
14. In the instant case, except stating that the property has
fallen to his share, the appellant did not elaborate the manner in

which the partition has taken place. The basic aspects that are
required to be stated and proved in relation to partition are, the
composition of the joint family or coparcenery i.e., the members
comprising of it, the existence of the properties that are held by it,
the shares that are allotted to various coparceners and in particular,
the person pleading the partition. The plaint is blissfully silent in all
these aspects.
15. Sometimes, the necessity to prove the facts that are
pleaded in a suit may not arise in case the defendants do not
dispute it. If there is not only a specific denial, but also a fresh case
presented by the defendant, the plaintiff would be under obligation
to file a rejoinder apart from proving the facts pleaded by him in the
plaint. The plea raised by the defendant that the appellant is a
stranger to the Maturi family, his father came to the house of
Subbarangaiah as a farm servant and that no partition has taken
place during the life time of Subbarangaiah, were not at all
contradicted by filing any rejoinder. Added to that, the appellant did
not prove the factum of partition much less the details thereof.
Hence, there was a clear failure on the part of the appellant to prove
the case pleaded by him.
16. Much reliance was placed by the appellant upon orders
passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, filed as Ex.A-1, and
deposition of Subbarangaiah in O.S.No.60 of 1971, filed as Ex.A-5.
An observation by the Tribunal does not confer title. So far as Ex.A5 is concerned, the appellant is not a party to O.S.No.60 of 1971 nor
that was a suit for declaration of any rights. It was suit filed by the
wife of Subbarangiah for maintenance and that ended in
compromise.

No rights can be said to have accrued to the

appellant from the decree passed in that suit.

17. The appellant has also relied upon the deposition of
Subbarangaiah in O.S.No.60 of 1971 (Ex.A-5). Assuming that there
was any admission, it does not enure to the benefit of the appellant,
particularly, when the scope of the suit itself was very limited. At
any rate, the deposition of a witness in a suit looses its significance,
if the suit was either dismissed for default or was decreed on the
basis of compromise.
18. It may be true that the entries in the revenue records for
a particular period were in favour of the appellant vis-a-vis the suit
schedule properties. However, at the instance of the respondents,
the entries are said to have been altered in favour of the
respondents and Ex.B-8 is filed in that behalf. Though Ex.B-1 was
not proved, it does not make much difference, as long as the
appellant herein failed to prove facts pleaded by him. This Court
does not find any basis to interfere with the judgments passed by
the trial Court and the lower appellate Court.
19. The second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
January 05, 2012.
Note:
L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/O.
KTL