THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1427 OF 2010 Dated:19.10.2011 Between: Vengalapudi Amajamma and another .. Appellants And Sirisipalli Venkataratnam and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1427 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellants are the defendants. They filed the instant appeal against the reversing judgment of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada in A.S.No.124 of 2007, dated 02.09.2010. The respondents 1 to 5 (hereafter, the plaintiffs) instituted the suit being O.S.No.131 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of suit schedule house bearing Door No.1-19-2, Dasari Bairagi Street, Tuni in East Godavari District. Their case is as follows. The first plaintiff is mother of plaintiffs 2 to 5. One Sirisipalli Suryanarayana - grandfather of plaintiffs 2 to 5, is the owner of the suit schedule property. He died in 1958 intestate survived by his wife Kantham and son Venkata Ramana – father of the plaintiffs 2 to 5. Venkata Ramana predeceased his mother and therefore Kantham alone was in possession of the property. After her death, the plaintiffs leased out the property to two tenants. They did not pay the rents. When enquired, it came to light that defendants 1 and 2 forcedly evicted the tenants producing a false document, demolished the house and sold the suit schedule house to the second defendant under registered sale deed dated 30.12.1999. The plaintiffs came to know that Nagaratnam who was kept mistress of their grandfather executed a gift deed 30.06.1983 in favour of her daughter - the first defendant, who in turn sold under sale deed, dated 30.12.1999 in favour of the second defendant. They contended that they have no right and therefore she could not have executed the gift deed nor first defendant could have executed the sale deed. The suit was opposed by the second defendant alone. The first defendant adopted the statement of second defendant. The second defendant, while admitting that Suryanarayana was the absolute owner and that he was survived by Katham and Venkata Ramana, alleged that Nagaratnam is her mother, who executed a settlement deed dated 30.06.1983 and that she sold the property in favour of the second defendant. The trial Court framed four issues including an additional issue. Plaintiffs examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A18. The second defendant deposed as D.W.1 and the first defendant gave evidence as D.W.2 and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. The trial Court on considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession or title for a period of 12 years before the filing of the suit and accordingly dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed. The appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence reversed the finding of the trial Court and decreed the suit. In this appeal, the counsel for the appellants submits that the first appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly; the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession 12 years prior to filing of the suit; and that the appellate Court ought to have given due importance to Ex.B3 - settlement deed executed by Nagaratnam in favour of first defendant. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of declaration and possession of the suit schedule property and whether Venkata Ramana was the legal heir of Suryanarayana are the two points considered by the first appellate Court. There is no dispute that Nagaratnam had only extra marital relationship with Suryanarayana and she was not legally wedded wife. It is admitted fact that Kantham is wife of Suryanarayana and Venkata Ramana (the father of the plaintiffs), is the only son of her. As the son died before her, Kantham inherited the property of Suryanarayana and after her death it was the plaintiffs got the property. An incidental question was whether the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Suryanarayana or the defendants are the legal heirs of Suryanarayana. Considering the documentary evidence - Exs.A6 and A8, the first appellate Court correctly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Suryanarayana and that Nagaratham had no right to execute Ex.B3 - settlement deed in favour of first defendant. The findings recorded by the first appellate Court are supported by cogent and convincing reasons and a question of law much less substantial question of law would not arise. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 19.10.2011 KH