Decided on March 05,1953



Satyanarayana Rao, J. - (1.) The first defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff, who is the sole respondent, instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises, for a declaration of his title to the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the properties.
(2.) The plaintiff is the grandson of one Panaya. Plaintiff's father is Subbaiah. Panaya had a brother Veerayah who had no sons but had four daughters. One of the daughters was married to one Nallamuthu Ramachandriah who, after his marriage lived practically as an iliatom son-in-law in the house of Veerayah. The houses of Panaya and Veerayah formed portions of the same house. Veerayah by a gift deed, Ex. A-7, dated 11-6-1918 gifted away items 1 to 4 of the plaint schedule to Ramachandriah, his son-in-law, and the fifth item in the plaint schedule was acquired by Ramachandriah Under Ex. A-8 dated 8-8-1922. For a long time, Ramachandriah had no issue. On 15-5-1930, by Ex. S-6, Ramachandriah purported to gift away items 1 to 5 of the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff subject to certain conditions. The place of residence of Ramachandriah and the plaintiff's father was Nadendla, a village within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar of Chilakalauripet. The document was executed at Chilakalauripet in the Karnam's house. It was presented for registration on the subsequent day, 16-5-1930 at Chilakalauripet and was registered. The plaintiff bases his title to the suit properties on this gift deed.
(3.) The case of the defendants, the first defendant being the daughter born to Ramachandriah 274 days after the date of the gift deed and the second defendant being her husband, who however died pending suit, was that when this document was received by post by Ramachandriah on 17th or 18th of May 1930 at Nadendla he complained after having the document read over to him, he being illiterate, to D. Ws. 4 and 5, that he was defrauded by Subbaiah, the father of the plaintiff who was then a minor, as it was represented to him that the document was a will executed in accordance with the wishes of Ramachandriah whereas as a matter of fact he found on a perusal of the document that the entire property was gifted away to the plaintiff subject only to the obligation of the donee performing the obsequies of Ramachandriah. There was no obligation cast on the donee to maintain Ramachandriah and his wife; nor was there any obligation cast on him to perform the funeral ceremonies of Ramachandriah's wife. After haying this document read over to him and realising that he was made to execute fraudulently a document which he never intended to execute on 19-51930 he executed a deed of cancellation Ex. B-3 in which he stated: "The minor's father Subbaiah having represented to me that he would recite in the said-document certain matters which he had told me, namely, that minor Narayana should maintain me and my wife during our lifetime, that only after the lifetime of both of us he should enjoy the property with all rights and some other matters favourable to us, and would get the document registered, had, without making the recitals accordingly, got it written that my obsequies alone would be performed. As he thus misled me and got the deed registered and as all the conditions in the said deed are against me, I hereby cancel the dhakal deed bearing No. 791 as stated above.";

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