IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3872 OF 2009
Karedla Parthasaradhi Appellant(s)
Versus
Gangula Ramanamma (D)
Through L.Rs. & Ors. Respondent(s)
The dispute relates to house bearing No. RS 233/1 situated in an area called “Gunadala” within the Municipal Corporation limits of Vijayawada, bearing door No.2/172 (Old Assessment No.225), new No.37687 (described in detail in the schedule attached to the plaint) (hereinafter referred to as “the suit house”).One Karedla Satyanarayna purchased the suit house by registered sale deed dated 15.12.1975 from one Smt. Abdul Amina Bee and her sister. At the time of purchase, there was only a tiled house. Subsequently he reconstructed the suit house. He died intestate on 19.12.1983. On his death, the plaintiff (appellant herein), who is real brother of late Karedla Satyanarayna, claimed that the suit house has devolved upon him along with his sister(defendant no. 2) in equal share being Class II (II)(3) (4) heirs as specified in the Schedule appended to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short “the Act”). However, the plaintiff could not get possession of the suit house because he noticed that defendant no. 1 was claiming herself to be in its possession and declined to vacate the same when demanded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also noticed that defendant no. 1 had been asserting her ownership rights over the suit house after the death of Satyanarayana as his wife. Therefore, on20.10.1984, the plaintiff served a legal notice to defendant no. 1 calling upon her to vacate the suit house and handover its possession to the plaintiff. Since defendant no.1 did not vacate the suit house despite service of notice to her, the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against defendant no. 1(respondent no. 1 herein) in the Court of IInd Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada. The suit was founded on the allegations inter alia that on the death of K. Satyanarayana, the suit house devolved upon the plaintiff being his brother as provided under Section 8 read with Class II (II) (3)of the Act. It was alleged that defendant no.1 was employed by K. Satynarayana to cook his food. It was alleged that since K. Satyanarayana was a bachelor, he had allowed defendant no. 1 to stay in the suit house as its caretaker and also because he used to be mostly on tour to various places being an active member of the Viswa Hindu Parishad. It was alleged that defendant no. 1 had neither any ownership nor any tenancy rights over the suit house. It was further alleged that even as a servant, she had no right to remain in the occupation of the suit house and in any event, after K. Satyanarayana’s death, the so-called contract of employment between her and K.Satyanaryana having come to an end, her permissive possession in the suit house had become unauthorized and was that of the trespasser qua its real owner – the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed a decree for possession of the suit house and damages at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month for its wrongful use from defendant no 1. The plaintiff also arrayed his sister as proforma defendant no. 2 without claiming any relief against her….read more