IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) No. 17945 of 2009

N. Srihari (dead) through LRs. & Ors.           …Petitioners

Versus

N. Prakash & Ors.          …Respondents

With

S.L.P(C) Nos.11716/2009, 17948/2009 & 21695/2009

O R D E R

1. All these four special leave petitions have been filed against the  

judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh  at  

Hyderabad dated 30th January, 2009, passed in A.S. No. 78 of 1994  

and A.S.M.P. No. 14246 of 2004.  This case has a chequered history  

as the parties have been fighting for several decades and this is the  

second round of litigation before this  court.  The parties  except  the  

petitioner in S.L.P(C) No. 21695 of 2009, belong to the same family  

1

and the dispute is with regard to the properties left by one N. Saya  

Goud and his wife Chandramma. N. Saya Goud and Chandramma had  

two sons,  namely,  N.  Balrajaiah  Goud and N.  Sathaiah Goud.   N.  

Balrajaiah had deserted his first wife, N. Pentamma and arranged a  

second  marriage  with  N.  Kausalya.  N.  Sathaiah  Goud  married  

Sulochana and out of their wedlock six sons were born.  N. Balrajaiah  

Goud also has five sons from his second wife N. Kausalya.  N. Saya  

Goud died in 1956, however,  before his death,  he executed a Will  

dated  2nd January,  1956  in  favour  of  his  wife  Chandramma  and,  

deserted wife of his son N. Balrajaiah Goud, namely,  N. Pentamma in  

respect of land measuring 19.15 guntas covered by Survey Nos. 284,  

285, 290, 292 and 293 situate in Lothukunta village of Alwal Mandal,  

Ranga Reddy District. The said land was under his protected tenancy.  

He also gave cash of Rs.30,000/- and gold weighing 140 tolas to his  

wife.   

2. After the death of N. Saya Goud, the properties covered by the  

Will  came  into  exclusive  possession  and  enjoyment  of  N.  

Chandramma  and  N.  Pentamma.  Subsequently,  the  said  two  

beneficiaries of the Will purchased the rights of the Pattadar under an  

2

unregistered sale deed in respect of the land mentioned in the Will  

and, thus, became the absolute owners of the said land.  They also  

purchased  agricultural  land  in  Survey  Nos.  291  and  602   of  

Lothukunta village to the extent of 1.30 guntas. Thus, their total joint  

holding had been to the extent of acres 21.05 guntas.  

3. On  6th March,  1969  three  documents  were  executed  and  

registered.  By  one  document  Smt.  N.  Chandramma  and  Smt.  N.  

Pentamma executed a Settlement Deed bearing Registration No. 467  

in favour of Smt. Sulochana W/o Shri N. Sathaiah Goud in respect of  

the land to the extent of 2982 square yards from their joint holding.  

By another document, Smt. Chandramma transferred her life interest  

in  the  property  in  favour  of  Smt.  Pentamma;  and  by  the  third  

document  Smt.  Sulochana  W/o Shri  N.  Sathaiah  Goud executed  a  

Disclaimer Deed, disclaiming any right or interest in the properties,  

that stood jointly vested with Smt. Pentamma and Smt. Chandramma  

i.e. the land to the  extent of acres 21.05 guntas.  

4. The elder son of Smt. N. Pentamma, namely, Shri N. Srihari  

filed a suit in 1977 for partition against his mother Smt. N. Pentamma  

3

and grand mother Smt. Chandramma and his brothers.  However, the  

said suit was compromised on 20th October, 1981 after expiry of their  

father Shri N. Balrajaiah on 24th May, 1981.   

5. In December 1984, the sons of Shri N. Sathaiah Goud claimed  

the entire share of Smt. N. Chandramma through a Will executed by  

her on 28th September, 1979 in their favour and it was found in a box  

after her death on 23rd April, 1984.  It is on the basis of this Will dated  

28th September, 1979, that Original Suit No. 456 of 1984 was filed by  

the respondents/plaintiffs in the court of Principal Sub-Judge, Ranga  

Reddy District.  The said Suit was renumbered as O.S. No. 9 of 1993.  

In  the  said  Suit,  the  present  petitioners  have  been  impleaded  as  

defendants along with their mother Smt. N. Pentamma.  They filed the  

written  statements  admitting  Will  dated  2.1.1956  and  all  other  

documents.   However,  it  was  contended  that  the  Will  dated  2nd  

January,  1956  had  created  only  leasehold  rights  in  favour  of  the  

beneficiaries, Smt. N. Chandramma and Smt. N. Pentamma and lost  

its significance once the protected tenancy rights had been converted  

into  freehold  rights  as  they  purchased  the  suit  property  for  

consideration from the landlord Shri Krishnan.   

4

6. The trial court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated  

8th September,  1993  by  the  District  Judge,  Ranga  Reddy  at  

Saroornagar, Hyderabad in favour of the respondents.    

7. Aggrieved  by  the  said  judgment  and  decree  dated  8th  

September,  1993,  the  petitioners  preferred  Appeal  No.  78  of  1994  

before the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.  In  

the said appeal,  Miscellaneous Application No. 17581 of 2001 was  

filed for calling for the original documents, namely, the Will executed  

by Shri N. Saya Goud dated 2nd January, 1956 and Release Deed dated  

6th March, 1969 executed by Smt. Chandramma in favour of Smt. N.  

Pentamma, as the Will dated 2.1.1956  had been filed in the court in a  

case filed by the Andra Bank against the present petitioners as they  

had taken a loan and could not repay the said amount.  The petitioners  

also filed C.M.P. No. 17582 of 2001, on 12th September, 2001, asking  

the High Court to take a copy of the unmarked Will of Shri N. Saya  

Goud dated 2nd January, 1956.  However, those documents could not  

be produced before the High Court. Vide judgment and order dated  

17th February, 2005, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the  

petitioners.  

5

8. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court by filing  

S.L.P.(C) Nos. 17808-09 of 2005 and this Court entertained the said  

petitions  and granted interim relief  vide order  dated 5th September,  

2005,  directing  the  trial  court  to  proceed  with  the  final  decree  

proceedings but not to sign the final decree without the leave of this  

Court.  

9. This Court vide judgment and order dated 19th February, 2008,  

disposed of the said Civil Appeal Nos. 1420-21 of 2008 in N. Srihari  

(Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. v. N. Prakash & Ors.,  (2008) 4 SCC  

683,  remanding  the  case  to  the  High  Court  to  decide  afresh  after  

considering the Will  dated 2nd January,  1956,  executed by Shri.  N.  

Saya Goud. The parties were also permitted to place the original Will  

dated 2nd January, 1956, for consideration of the High Court, in case  

the  said document was not available in original, the parties would  be  

entitled to place the certified copy of the Will dated 2nd January, 1956.  

10. In  pursuance  of  the  said  order,  the  High  Court  decided  the  

matter  afresh  vide  judgment  and  decree  dated  30th January,  2009.  

However, it may be pertinent to mention here that the original Will or  

6

a certified copy of the said Will was not placed before the High Court.  

The High Court held that as the copy of the photocopy of the Will  

dated  2nd January,  1956,  could  not  be  taken  on  record,  and  the  

application in this regard stood rejected.   

Against the said order, S.L.P.(C) No.11716 of 2009 has been  

filed.  In view of the order, we are going to pass in other connected  

matters considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the  

High Court, it is not necessary to deal with this special leave petition  

and it  is hereby rejected.

11. So  far  as  the  S.L.P.(C)  No.  21695  of  2009  titled  Ramesh  

Chawla v. N. Srihari & Ors. is concerned, the same has been filed  

against the impugned judgment and order in other petitions.  In this  

case,  a  miscellaneous  application  has  been  filed  by  the  petitioner  

herein for impleadment in view of the fact that they had claimed to  

have purchased a land measuring 500 square yards from the sisters of  

the original plaintiffs after the judgment and decree of the trial court  

and during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court.  The  

High Court has held that his interest by such an application shall be  

covered by Doctrine of Lis Pendens, therefore, his impleadment was  

7

not necessary.  Shri P.S. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the petitioner, has made submissions to substantiate his claim.    

12. The remaining two special leave petitions filed by the original  

defendants are against the same judgment and order.  They were heard  

together and disposed of by common order.  

13. The Will of Shri N. Saya Goud dated 2nd January, 1956, granted  

only protected tenancy rights to his widow Smt. N. Chandramma and  

his  daughter-in-law  Smt.  N.  Pentamma.   Subsequently,  the  afore-

mentioned beneficiaries of the said Will purchased the freehold rights  

for consideration and became the absolute owners of the property.  

14. Even if the copy of the photocopy of the Will of Shri N. Saya  

Goud dated 2nd January, 1956 is taken on record and considered, it did  

not  create  merely  life-interest  in  the  property  for  Smt.  N.  

Chandramma.   The relevant part thereof reads:  

“I am worried about my wife Chandramma and  my eldest daughter-in-law Pentamma.  When the  case  was  run  in  the  court  I  have  taken  up  the   responsibility  of  maintenance  of  Pentamma.  Hence,  by  virtue  of  this  Will  deed,  I  am giving  away all my movable and immovable properties to  

8

these two.  As long as the life  time of my wife   Chandramma, the said Pentamma shall serve her   and  incur  the  income  derived  from  the  said  property for their (two) welfare.  My self and my  wife together struggled hard and earned the said  property. Hence, nobody shall have any right in   it.”(Emphasis added)

In fact the Will provides for a direction to Smt. N. Pentamma to  

serve her mother in law Smt. N. Chandramma during her life time. It  

does not provide that Smt. N. Chandramma would have only a right of  

maintenance during her life time.   

15 The Release Deed dated 6th March, 1969 executed by Smt. N.  

Chandramma  in  favour  of  her  daughter-in-law  Smt.  N.  Pentamma  

talks of not only agricultural land but also eleven houses bearing Nos.  

8-21-22, 8-23-21, 8-25-26, 8-27-28, 8-29-30, 8-31-32, 8-33-34, 8-35,  

8-36 and 8-36A, which were part of the property given to her in the  

Will of Shri N. Saya Goud dated 2nd January, 1956. There is nothing  

on record to show what happened to the land in Survey No.602, which  

was purchased subsequently as the deed made reference only to the  

land in Survey No.291.   

9

16 So  far  as  the  Will  in  favour  of  the  plaintiffs  dated  28th  

September,  1979,  is  concerned,  it  clearly  reveals  that  Smt.  N.  

Chandramma was the absolute owner of half share of the property and  

cannot be said to have had merely a life interest in the same.  It also  

clearly reveals how a fraud had been committed on her earlier by her  

son Shri N. Balrajaiah Goud.  The relevant portion of the Will reads  

as under:

“My husband had given equal rights to me and to   my daughter-in-law  through Will.   According to   this,  I myself and my daughter-in-law Pentamma  have  joint  rights  over  the  properties  purchased  through sale  deeds.   My elder son Nemuri  Bala   Rajaiah  has  executed  a  document,  pertaining  to   this, there is no any disturbance from it.  With a   condition  that  my  daughter-  in-law  has  to  look   after me during my life  time, my life time rights   has been given to her which I have come to know   the same, that document is hereby not cancelled as   per the advice, I have not tried for the same.  My  son Nemuri Bala Rajaiah, my daughter-in-law are  not  looking after me, I  myself  with my own free  Will  and  consent  have  been  staying  with  my  younger son Nemuri Sathaiah.” (Emphasis added)

17. The document on record i.e. the Will dated 2.1.1956 had never  

been admitted as required under the law. Therefore, no fault can  

be found with the judgment impugned given by the High Court.  

Such a document cannot be taken on record. Even otherwise we  

10

have examined the said document and it makes it clear that the  

said  document  did  not  create  only  the  life  interest for  Smt.  

Chandramma,  rather  it  created  equal  rights for  both  the  

beneficiaries.  More  so,  once  the  freehold  rights  had  been  

acquired  in  the  said  property  at  a  subsequent  stage  by  the  

beneficiaries, Smt. Chandramma had a right to deal with half  

share of the said property in any manner she liked. The alleged  

deed executed by Smt. N. Chandramma in favour of Smt. N.  

Pentamma though a registered document, is not free from the  

doubt that it was not of her free will as it provides that Smt.  

Chandramma was transferring only  life interest. More so, the  

document contains large number of properties including eleven  

houses which had never been a subject matter of the Will dated  

2.1.1956.  

The High Court has considered this document elaborately and  

held that there was substantial  evidence of strong circumstances to  

indicate  that  it  was written on the dictates  of Balrajaiah  Goud and  

Smt. N. Pentamma by using undue influence on Chandramma. The  

recitals in the other documents do not reflect in the Release Deed, and  

therefore, the High Court held that the said document was not out of  

11

the free will and consent of Chandramma and it stood vitiated because  

of fraud and undue influence on her.  

18. The facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant review  

of  the  impugned  judgment.  All  the  petitions  lack  merit  and  are  

accordingly dismissed.  

 ……………………………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

                                                                             …………………………

…J.  (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi,  October 29, 2010

12