Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 625 (AP)

State of A. P. v. M. Lalithamma Lolamma

2025-04-24

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2025
JUDGMENT : Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant challenging the decree and judgment, dated 20.09.1999 in O.S.No.30 of 1994, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta [for short ‘the trial Court’]. 2. The appellant herein is the 1 st defendant; the 1 st respondent herein is the sole plaintiff and 2 nd respondent herein is the 2 nd defendant in O.S.No.30 of 1994. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1 st respondent died and her legal representative was brought on record as 3 rd respondent and the respondent Nos.4 to 11 were impleaded in the appeal proceedings. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the Escheat Proceedings initiated by the Collector, representing 1 st defendant-Government are illegal and void; for consequential relief of recovery of plaint ‘A to C’ schedule properties as detailed in Srikakulam District Gazette published in December, 1984, after ejecting the 1 st defendant there from; for recovery of Rs.20,250/- towards past profits from 1989-90 to 1991-92 at the rate of Rs.6,750/- per year from plaint ‘A’ schedule lands from 1 st defendant; for future profits and for costs of the suit. 4. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 5. The brief averments of the plaint in O.S.No.30 of 1994 are as under: One Challa Venkataramana was the owner of plaint ‘A’ schedule lands for an extent of Ac.2-32 cents, situated at Peddabadam in Purushottampuram Village and ‘B’ schedule house situated in Purushottapuram Village. Challa Venkataramana died on 12.09.1982. He had no wife or children. His unmarried sister and his mother are pre-deceased to him. He had no Class-I heirs. The father of Venkataramana was one Balaramaswamy. The said Balaramaswamy got a brother by name Laxmanaswamy. By the date of death of Venkataramana, Laxmanaswamy being the only surviving legal heirs under Class-II group 7 of the Hindu Succession Act is alone alive. The said Laxmanaswamy died on 05.04.1984 leaving behind the plaintiff and another daughter by name Tirunagari Varahalamma. The said Varahalamma died on 23.04.1987 leaving behind another son 2 nd defendant. Thus, Laxmanaswamy, his two daughters, plaintiff and Varahalamma are entitled to his vested rights. The said Laxmanaswamy died on 05.04.1984 leaving behind the plaintiff and another daughter by name Tirunagari Varahalamma. The said Varahalamma died on 23.04.1987 leaving behind another son 2 nd defendant. Thus, Laxmanaswamy, his two daughters, plaintiff and Varahalamma are entitled to his vested rights. After the death of Varahalamma, 2 nd defendant have joint right vested in all properties of Laxmanaswamy including the properties of Venkataramana succeeded to by Laxmanaswamy. The 1 st defendant without any basis had initiated proceedings under Section 11(2) of Andhra Pradesh Escheats Act and took possession of ‘A & C’ plaint schedules which were by then valued at Rs.61,053/- illegally. Plaintiff after coming to know about the illegal notification got issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure notice on 21.01.1992 and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 6. The 1st defendant/Government filed written statement before the trial Court denying the allegations in the plaint. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: The proceedings were issued in accordance with the Act and after thorough enquiry, as it was found that there were no heirs to late Challa Venkataramana, the properties were notified under the Escheats Act and were published in Srikakulam District Gazette, dated 24.12.1984. Within three months for publication, none came forward to claim the properties. The plaintiff has no right. The suit is bad for want of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure notice and hence to dismiss the suit. 7. The 2 nd defendant remained exparte in the suit proceedings. 8. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaint schedule properties are notified under Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act by the State Government? (2) Whether the plaintiff has a right to claim the property which is already vested to the State Government? (3) Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? (4) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants, DW1 to DW5 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 were marked. 10. (4) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants, DW1 to DW5 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 were marked. 10. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 20.09.1999, against which the present appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful 1 st defendant/State in the suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 11. Heard Ms.M. Anusha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for appeals appearing for appellant; heard Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and heard Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 11. 12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for appeals appearing for appellant, would contend that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. She would further contend that the trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff had not produced any documentary evidence to establish that she belongs to Class-II legal heir under Hindu Succession Act and that the trial Court came to a wrong conclusion and decreed the suit. She would further contend that the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge is not sustainable under law and appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment and passed by the learned trial Judge. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 11 would contend that there are no merits in the appeal and the appeal may be dismissed. 15. Now the points for determination in the first appeal are: 1) Whether Escheat Proceedings initiated by the appellant are not valid? 2) Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit by holding that the plaintiff and 2 nd defendant are entitled possession of plaint ‘A to C’ sc hedule properties? 16. 15. Now the points for determination in the first appeal are: 1) Whether Escheat Proceedings initiated by the appellant are not valid? 2) Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit by holding that the plaintiff and 2 nd defendant are entitled possession of plaint ‘A to C’ sc hedule properties? 16. Point Nos.1 and 2: The plaintiff herein is filed the suit challenging the Escheat Proceedings issued by the appellant and the contention of the plaintiff is that the proper procedure has not been followed by the appellant and without following proper procedure, the appellant issued impugned Escheat Proceedings. The plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and also relied on Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7. The evidence of P.W.1 is she is the daughter of Laxmanaswamy, Balaramaswamy is brother of Laxmanaswamy and Challa Venkataramana is son of Balaramaswamy. Laxmanaswamy i.e., father of plaintiff, died on 05.04.1984 leaving behind Varahalamma and Varahalamma died on 23.04.1987 leaving behind her son, 2 nd defendant. PW.2 and PW.3 supported the evidence of P.W.1. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would contend that one Challa Venkataramana was the owner of Ac.2-32 cents of plaint ‘A’ schedule lands and ‘B’ schedule house situated at Purushottapuram Village and he died on 12.09.1982 and he died unmarried and his mother and unmarried sister also pre-deceased to him and there is no Class-I heirs. Learned counsel for the respondent 2 and 3 would contend that the plaintiff and Varahalamma are entitled possession of the plaint schedule properties being Class-II heirs of Varahalamma since Class-I heirs are not there to Challa Venkataramana and he died intestate without children. In order to prove the relationship that Balaramaswamy is father of Challa Venkataramana and Laxmanaswamy, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A.1, the certified extract of death register of Laxmanaswamy and Ex.A.2, the certified copy of death extract of Varahalamma. Ex.A.3 the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 03.06.1958 which is executed by Punnamma, wife of Balaramayya and Venakta Rao @ Dharmaraju. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that Challa Venkataramana died issueless and to support the contention of the appellant and to disprove the evidence produced by the plaintiff, the appellant relied on the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.5. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that Challa Venkataramana died issueless and to support the contention of the appellant and to disprove the evidence produced by the plaintiff, the appellant relied on the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.5. D.W.1 and D.W.2 are Mandal Revenue Officer and Village Administrative Officer and they pleaded ignorance about the relationship of plaintiff and 2 nd defendant with late Varahalamma. D.W.3 who is Sarpanch of the village categorically admitted that Balaramaswamy is father of deceased Venkataramana, Punnamma is the mother of Venkataramana and Laxmanaswamy is the brother of Balaramaswamy. But, he expressed his ignorance about the relationship of plaintiff with Laxmanaswamy. 18. As seen from Ex.A.6, notice said to have been issued by plaintiff, dated 21.01.1992 to the defendants by narrating the relationship of plaintiff and 2 nd defendant with Challa Venkata Ramana. After receiving the notice, the 1 st defendant kept quiet and did not choose to give any reply by denying Ex.A.6 notice. 19. To disprove the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the Government did not adduce any evidence to show that they followed proper procedure before issuance of escheat proceedings. There is no evidence on record to show there is vide publication in a local newspaper in accordance with rules before issuance of escheat proceedings. It is well settled that before issuance of escheat proceedings by way of gazette, the Government has to follow proper procedure and the Government has to issue publication and general notice to call for the objections from the general public. In this regard, no material has been placed by the appellant that they have followed proper procedure before issuance of escheat proceedings by way of gazette notification. 20. Learned counsel for the respondents 1, 3 & 4 to 11 would contend that once the escheat proceedings are set aside, the possession has to be followed. Though respondents 4 to 11 are impleaded in the present appeal proceedings, they have not produced any additional evidence before this Court in the first appeal except the copy of the plaint, written statement and judgment in O.S.No.59 of 1990 of Subordiante Judge Court, Sompeta. It is relevant to say that the said suit, O.S.No.59 of 1990 of Subordiante Judge Court, Sompeta has been dismissed. It is relevant to say that the said suit, O.S.No.59 of 1990 of Subordiante Judge Court, Sompeta has been dismissed. By giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge rightly held that the Government has not followed proper procedure before issuance of escheat proceedings, resultantly, the escheat proceedings are invalid and consequently, the possession has to be given to plaintiff and 2 nd defendant. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. 21. In the result, the first appeal is dismissed confirming the decree and judgment, decree and judgment, dated 20.09.1999 in O.S.No.30 of 1994, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the first appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.