//
you're reading...
CHEQUE BOUNS CASE

No injunction – Admittedly, the suit properties are the properties of Subbi Reddy, the father of the plaintiff. The specific case of the plaintiff is that there was a partition between the defendant and her daughters and in that, the suit schedule property was allotted to her. Evidently, none of the other daughters were examined and no document was produced to show the above factum of partition. In fact, Ex.B.1, the registered Will dated 01.03.1952 clearly goes to show that Subbi Reddy has conveyed all his properties to the defendant. Having derived the right under Ex.B.1 she has executed the gift deed Ex.B.2 in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is quite clear that the plaintiff’s case of entitlement of the suit schedule property in a partition is not true. The fact that the plaintiff and her husband were staying with the defendant is not in dispute. Merely because the plaintiff and her husband were helping the defendant, it is not a case where the rights are created and even if any cultivation is done, it can be only on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff did not come to the Court with clean hands and failed to prove the right of possession and manner in which she claims to have been enjoying the property. The appellate Court has therefore, rightly accepted the contention of the defendant and the reasons given by the trial Court were not being correct set aside the judgment. I do not find any substantial question of law to interfere with the finding of the 1st appellate Court.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICEN.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

English: Law and legal affairs in 15th century...

English: Law and legal affairs in 15th century Normandy, France: duel with swords between plaintiff and defendant. Hand-painted color miniatures with ornate borders. Illustration in: The Costumes de Normandie, ca. 1450-1470 (folio 89). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

SECOND APPEAL No.42 OF 2012

 

JUDGMENT:-

The plaintiff in O.S.No.449 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur, is the appellant herein.

 

2.       The suit was one filed for permanent injunction contending that the schedule property belonged to her father and the defendant is her mother.  She has five sisters and about 15 years back there was a partition and the suit schedule property fell to her share.  She has been in possession and enjoyment of the same continuously.  On the other hand, the defendant contended that the property belonged to her husband Subbi Reddy and during his lifetime he executed a registered Will bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant and she became absolute owner of the property.  The plaintiff was married in 1970 and there were disputes and therefore, the plaintiff and her husband came and lived with the defendant.  In 1974 the defendant has gifted some properties to the plaintiff and the plaint schedule property was not included in it.  It was further contended that the defendant has sold properties and those sale deeds were attested by the plaintiff and her husband.  Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for an injunction.  After considering the evidence on record, the Court below decreed the suit of the plaintiff.  As against that, A.S.No.56 of 2005 was carried to the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur and he allowed the appeal dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

 

3.       Admittedly, the suit properties are the properties of Subbi Reddy, the father of the plaintiff.  The specific case of the plaintiff is that there was a partition between the defendant and her daughters and in that, the suit schedule property was allotted to her.  Evidently, none of the other daughters were examined and no document was produced to show the above factum of partition.  In fact, Ex.B.1, the registered Will dated 01.03.1952 clearly goes to show that Subbi Reddy has conveyed all his properties to the defendant.  Having derived the right under Ex.B.1 she has executed the gift deed Ex.B.2 in favour of the plaintiff.  Therefore, it is quite clear that the plaintiff’s case of entitlement of the suit schedule property in a partition is not true.  The fact that the plaintiff and her husband were staying with the defendant is not in dispute.  Merely because the plaintiff and her husband were helping the defendant, it is not a case where the rights are created and even if any cultivation is done, it can be only on behalf of the defendant.  The plaintiff did not come to the Court with clean hands and failed to prove the right of possession and manner in which she claims to have been enjoying the property.   The appellate Court has therefore, rightly accepted the contention of the defendant and the reasons given by the trial Court were not being correct set aside the judgment.  I do not find any substantial question of law to interfere with the finding of the 1st appellate Court.

 

4.       Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.  No costs.  Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

 

          _______________________________

JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

Date:10.07.2012

INL

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: