Decided on January 07,2022

Tuboti Venkateswarlu (Died) Appellant
Rayasam Madhava Rao Respondents


R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. - (1.) The deceased/1st appellant had filed O.S.No.348 of 1987, against the defendants/respondents in the present appeal in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur for possession of plaint - A schedule property, and for future profits from the date of suit to date of possession. (The parties are referred as they are arrayed in the plaint.) The said schedule consisted of two items of property. Item No.1 was a house property, in an extent of 200 sq.yards of land within Guntur Municipal area. Item No.2 was agricultural land, to an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in D.No.335/A of Govindapuram Village, Guntur District. This suit was filed as a suit in informa pauperis, by way of O.P.No.257 of 1986. The suit was taken up and in the course of the proceedings, the 1st plaintiff passed away and his son was brought on record as the 2nd plaintiff, by way of an order dated 16.08.1999 in I.A.No.808 of 1999.
(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff had a brother viz., Tubeti Sriramulu @ Pullaiah, who was married to one Veeramma. Upon the death of Sriramulu after a short married life, Veeramma continued to reside with the joint family and on her request, she had been paid funds out of the joint family funds towards her maintenance. She in turn acquired schedule property, by using this maintenance money and the plaintiffs and their family members have been assisting her whenever she required help. While matters stood thus, the 1st defendant, who is the son of the brother of Smt.Veeramma and the 2nd defendant, who is the wife of the 1st defendant, with a view to grab the properties of Smt.Veeramma, had taken advantage of the incapacitated and mentally weak stage of Smt.Veeramma in the last years of her life to obtain conveyance of her property in their favour. Having came to know of these attempts, the 1st plaintiff issued a notice dated 24.03.1986, to the defendants that any attempt to transfer the properties of Smt.Veeramma, by the defendants would be resisted and any document brought into existence by playing fraud, coercion or misrepresentation or forgery would not have any legal validity. The 1st defendant after receiving this notice, sent a reply through an advocate on 14.04.1986, denying the allegations of the 1st plaintiff.
(3.) Smt.Veeramma died intestate on 14.08.1986 and her death ceremonies were carried out hurriedly without informing the 1st plaintiff about the said demise. The 1st plaintiff claiming that he becomes legal heir to the properties of Smt.Veeramma, filed the suit, for possession of the A-schedule properties as the defendants had taken unlawful possession of the A-Schedule property, by attorning the leases of the tenants situated in these properties in their favour.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.