MANGIPUDI NAGARAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Mangipudi Nagaraju filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

(2.) One Prabhakara Rao, respondent No.15, son of younger brother of Murthy, having lost all the properties, fell to the share of his father, with a mala fide intention to become owner of the property of Murthy, hatched a plan and fabricated an adoption deed dtd. 24/5/1993 to claim that Murthy and Sodemma adopted respondent No.14, and got the signature of Murthy and Sodemma on the said fabricated adoption deed by fraud and misrepresentation on the day when Murthy executed and registered a sale deed in favour of his wife and also requested the said couple to perform thread marriage (Vadugu) to respondent No.14. Out of good faith, the said couple performed thread marriage (Vadugu) to respondent No.14. Even assuming that there is adoption deed, it was not acted upon as is evident from Certificate issued by the Principal, SKBR College, Amalapuram, House Hold Cards of Mr.Murthy and respondent No.15 etc. In the year 2002, respondent No.15 fabricated unregistered agreement of sale on the blank stamp papers signed by Mr.Murthy having believed him. By relying upon the said fabricated adoption deed and photographs of thread marriage (Vadugu) performed by the said couple, respondent No.14 filed O.S.No.82 of 2002 for partition of the above mentioned property by claiming that he is the adopted son of Murthy and Sodemma.

(3.) Respondent No.15 also filed O.S.No.20 of 2002 for specific performance of unregistered agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by Murthy on 25/1/1985 in connection with land admeasuring Ac.8.44 1/3rd including the subject land of Ac.7.55 cents i.e. after lapse of more than 17 years from the date of alleged execution of the said unregistered agreement. Murthy and Sodemma contested both the suits and denied the execution of both the fabricated adoption deed dtd. 24/5/1993 and alleged unregistered agreement of sale dtd. 25/1/1985 During the pendency of both the said suits, respondent No.17, the then Minister for Animal Husbandry alleged to have purchased the property, which is the subject matter of those two suits, and started construction of palatial building in the subject property and he by abusing his power as the Minister for Animal Husbandry made the authorities concerned to issue antedated permissions in contravention of Rules. Then, the petitioner Sodemma approached this Court by filing W.P.No.12456/2012, W.P.No.19410/2012, W.P.No.25289/2012, wherein this Court granted interim orders dtd. 26/4/2012, 10/7/2012 and 3/9/2012 respectively directing that there shall not be any construction in the subject property. As this Court was pleased to protect the interest of the petitioner and Sodemma, respondent No.17who was the Minister for Animal Husbandry at the relevant point of time (2011-14), used to send his agents to the Trail Court to inform about the developments in the said suits. As the Minister is personally involved in the said suits, and he had been regularly sending his agents as and when the said suits are listed, these Suits were being popularly called as "Minister Gari Files". While so, after full-fledged trail, the trial Court decreed both the suits in favour of respondent Nos.14 and 15 vide judgment dtd. 29/4/2019 in O.S.No.20/2002 and O.S.No.82/2002. This judgment is not only erroneous and perverse but also contrary to well settled legal principles and contrary to various judgments of the Apex Court more particularly judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Uttam v. Saubhag Singh", 2016 (4) SCC 68.