M C CHINNA NAGAMMA Vs. M C GIDDAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12-9-1988 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool in AS No.76 of 1983. By the impugned judgment and decree, the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool dated 25-6-1983 on OS No.3 of 1981 and consequently dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence, the plaintiff is before this Court in this second appeal.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff strenuously contended that the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate Court are illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. He further submitted that the appellate Court is in error in holding that there was a partition between Chinna Nagamma and Pedda Nagamma during the life time of their mother Chenchamma, wife of Pullanna and the appellate Court failed to see that after the death of Chenchamma, the plaintiff has been in possession of the entire property as the owner and accordingly the plaintiff was entitled for declaration and possession. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant No.1 contended that on the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary, particularly Exs. Bl and B2, the registered lease deeds showing that Akula Chenchamma and Chintala Seshanna (husband of Dl) leased the property and ultimately vide Exs.B8 to B42 ryorwari pattas were issued in the name of defendant No.1 regarding her share and the appellate Court has rightly concluded that there was a partition during the life time of Chanchamma, between Pedda Nagamma and Chinna Nagamma, the plaintiff and accordingly reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. He further submitted that at any rate, the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by time and having regard to these circumstances, the appellate Court rightly dismissed the suit and the judgment and decree of the appellate Court do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court under Section 100 of CPC.

(3.) In order to appreciate the rival contentions, I have to briefly note the facts of this case. The plaintiff filed a suit in OS No.3 1981 (old No.437 of 1974 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nandikotkur) for declaration and injunction and alternatively for possession regarding the land in SyNo.269/2-B. The plaintiff also has filed another suit in OS No.30 of 1981 for injunction in the land bearing No.269/2B. In both the suits, the case of the plaintiff was that the land originally belonged to Pullanna, the father of the plaintiff, who died in the year 1920 leaving behind him his wife Chanchamma and two daughters by name Pedda Nagamma (mother-in-law of defendant No. 1) and Chinna Nagamma (the plaintiff). Pedda Nagamma died in the year 1937. After her death, the mother of the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till her death in the year 1954 and after her death, the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the entire survey land and consequently she is entitled to be declared as owner, as per the Hindu Succession Act and an injunction also may be granted, and in case the Court holds that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property, the possession may be ordered. The first defendant by filing a written statement, contested the suit. She denied the case of the plaintiff as pleaded by her in the plaint. She contended that after the death of their father Pullanna, in the year 1920, Pedda Nagamma and Chinna Nagamma had divided the property and half of the suit property was in possession of the respective daughters with the consent of their mother Chanchamma and accordingly, Pedda Nagamma was in possession regarding the half of the property. She died in the year 1937, leaving behind her only son Shesanna and this Sheshanna also died in the year 1958 leaving behind his widow defendant No.1 and accordingly defendant No.l is in possession of the half of the property all along and she has sold that property in favour of defendant No.2 for her family necessities. Defendant No. 1 pleased that having regard to these circumstances, the plaintiffs suit was liable to be dismissed and the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.2 was not a nominal or sham document as alleged by the plaintiff. She further contended that plaintiff has never been in actual possession of the plaint schedule property (half of the total extent). Defendant No.l further contended that these lands were the service inam lands and after their abolition under Andhra Inams Abolition and Conversion Act, 1956, ryotwari pattas were granted by the revenue authorities to the extent of half to defendant No.l and other half to the plaintiff and accordingly the plaintiff and defendant No.l have been in possession of their respective half, shares in the suit schedule property. Thus, the defendant No.l has been the owner and possessor of half of the suit land and consequently the suit of the plaintiff regarding this half of the suit land under the ownership and possession of defendant No.l is liable to be dismissed.