CHALLA VENKATA SITARAMANJANEYA SASTRY Vs. CHITTA POORNACHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No.27 of 1981 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gudivada, are the appellants in the above appeal. While so, being aggrieved by the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the ante adoption agreement set up by the plaintiff is not true, the plaintiff filed the Cross-Objections. The suit is filed for eviction of defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 8 from the plaint 'A' schedule property (R.C.C. building in 180 square yards of site bearing Municipal Door No.15/143 in Gudivada town); for delivery of possession of the same to the plaintiff; for past and future profits; and for possession of plaint 'B' schedule silver articles from defendants 1 and 3 or their value as fixed by the court and for giving true and correct account of the amounts and other movables belonging to the deceased Smt. Chitta Seethamma by defendants 1 and 3. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff and the 1st defendant are stepbrothers and sons of the 3rd defendant. 2nd defendant is the son of 1st defendant. 9th defendant is the wife of Smt. Chitta Seethamma's brother. Defendants 4 to 8 are the tenants of plaint 'A' schedule property. Plaintiff is the adopted son of Chitta Seethamma under a registered adoption deed dated 5-7-1961 (Ex.A-1). Originally, Smt. Chitta Seethamma was the owner of the plaint schedule property and also terraced shop rooms bearing Nos.9/62, 9/63, 9/64 and 9/64A in Gudivada town. Prior to the execution of Ex.A-1-adoption deed, out of love and affection towards the plaintiff and D-1, who are the grand sons of her sister, Seethamma executed a gift deed dated 5-5-1961 (Ex.A2) gifting the terraced shops bearing Nos.9/62, 9/63 to the plaintiff and the shops bearing Nos.9/64 and 9/64A to the 1st defendant and also delivered possession of the same to them. It is the further case of the plaintiff that in the last week of June 1961, Seethamma wanted to adopt the plaintiff and proposed to the 3rd defendant that she would give all her movable and immovable properties owned and possessed by her and that she would make the plaintiff Karta of all the properties. Believing the said representation, the 3rd defendant agreed to give the plaintiff in adoption to Seethamma. Thereafter, the adoption was duly performed and an adoption deed (Ex.A-1) was accordingly executed. Seethamma managed the properties during the minority of the plaintiff and also thereafter.

(2.) By the date of adoption, Seethamma was having cash of about Rs.20,000/-, gold ornaments, silver articles besides other household articles and the plaint 'A' schedule site with a thatched shed therein. After the adoption, the plaintiff was in the care and custody of Seethamma. Thus, the plaintiff became owner and was entitled to the beneficial interest in all the properties of Seethamma. It is his further case that he acquired title to the plaint 'A' schedule property by adverse possession also. In or about 1970, Seethamma removed the thatched shed in plaint 'A' schedule site and constructed a building with 9 rooms. She retained two rooms for her own use and occupation and leased out the other seven rooms to defendants 4 to 8 on monthly rental. Since 1972, the plaintiff lived with the 1st defendant at Hyderabad and D-1 was looking after all the affairs of the plaintiff as he was under the care and protection of the 1st defendant. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on account of the persuasions of defendants 1, 3 and 9, Seethamma executed a Will on 16-8-1977 (registration extract of the said Will is marked as Ex.A-4 by the plaintiff and the original will is marked as Ex.B-12 by the defendants) in a sound and disposing state of mind giving a limited life estate to the 9th defendant in the eastern half of the plaint 'A' schedule building and the vested remainder right to the plaintiff; and also bequeathing the western portion of the building in favour of the plaintiff, which she wanted to take effect immediately after her death.

(3.) Thereafter, it is averred that Seethamma lost her coherence and speech and that her health condition gradually deteriorated. After Seethamma was removed to the 1st defendant's house in Hyderabad, in the 1st week of January 1978, the plaintiff was regularly attending to her needs. Seethamma was an illiterate.