GAJULA RATNAJI Vs. BOPPANA VEERA PRABHAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Boppana Veera Prabhavathi, in A.S.Nos.2847 and 2848 of 1999 and Tr.A.S.No.3705 of 2000, filed suits O.S.Nos.33 and 34 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur. O.S.No.33 of 1989 was filed for declaration of title in respect of the schedule property covered by Ex.A3, which is 'C' schedule property of the plaint in O.S.No.34 of 1989 and O.S.No.34 of 1989 was filed for partition and separate possession of 3/4th share in plaint A, B and C schedule properties. The first defendant, Smt. M.Sattemma, in both the suits filed O.S.No.43 of 1994 against the defendant/appellant herein for permanent injunction restraining her from interfering with her possession to the plaint schedule property. The appellant in A.S.No.967 of 1997 is the second defendant in O.S.No.34 of 1989. Both the suits O.S.Nos.33 and 34 of 1989 filed by the appellant herein were dismissed and the suit O.S.No.43 of 1994 filed by the respondent/first defendant for permanent injunction in respect of the said properties was decreed by a common judgment and decree dated 15.04.1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suits in O.S.Nos.33 and 34 of 1989 the plaintiff filed A.S.Nos.2847 and 2848 of 1999 and the second defendant in O.S.No.34 of 1989 filed A.S.No.967 of 1997. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No 43 of 1994, the defendant, who is the plaintiff in the other two suits, filed Tr.A.S.No.3705 of 2000. As the trial Court disposed the three suits by common judgment and decree and as similar questions of fact and law arise for consideration, these four appeals are also disposed by common judgment.

(2.) The suit O.S.No.34 of 1989 filed by B.V. Prabhavathi for partition of her 3/4th share in plaint A, B and C schedule properties is the main suit in the aforesaid three appeals as the plaintiff therein claims that she is the adopted daughter of the first defendant in the said two suits and plaintiff in O.S.No.43 of 1994. The suit O.S.No.33 of 1989 filed basing on an unregistered document Ex.A3 alleging that the plaint C schedule property in O.S.No.34 of 1989 was gifted to the plaintiff towards Pasupu Kumkuma at the time of her marriage as she being the adopted daughter. Therefore, the main question that arises for consideration is as to whether B.V. Prabhavathi is the adopted daughter of the first defendant - M. Sattemma and her late husband. The other question that arises for consideration is as to whether the second defendant in O.S.No.34 of 1989 was able to prove his independent title in respect of Item IV of plaint A schedule property. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The said B.V. Prabhavathi is hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff; Smt. M. Sattemma is hereinafter referred to as the first defendant and Gajula Ratnaji is hereinafter referred to as the second defendant.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant and her late husband, Maddukuri Papa Rao, are her adoptive parents and Maddukuri Suryarao and his wife - Seethamma, are her natural parents It is stated that her natural father and adoptive father are the sons of the brothers. The adoptive father and the first defendant brought up the plaintiff with great love and affection since her birth and later they requested the natural parents to give the plaintiff in adoption in October 1977, as they had no children and as they did not give birth to any child. The natural parents of the plaintiff agreed to give the plaintiff in adoption, then the natural and adoptive parents of the plaintiff fixed the date of adoption on 30.07.1977 at 7.18 AM and the adoptive parents have took the plaintiff in adoption and the natural parents gave her in adoption on 30.07.1977 in accordance with their caste customs and ceremonies in the presence of their relatives, village elders and others. Since then the plaintiff had been treated as the adopted daughter of Paparao and the first defendant. Thus, it is stated that the plaintiff and her adoptive father are co-parceners.