Decided on September 22,1972



M.Krishna Rao, J. - (1.) This appeal is filed by defendants 1 and 3 to 7 against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bapatla in O. S. No. 26 of 1967.
(2.) The relationship between the parties may be stated as follows : Rami Reddy and Veera reddy are two brothers. The plaintiff is the widow of Rami reddy. The Ist defendant is the widow of Veera reddy, defendants 2, 3, and 4 are the sons and defendants 5, 6 and 7 are the daughters of Veerareddy. Ramireddy and Veerareddy were living as members of an undivided family. On 4-5-1969 Ramireddy executed a deed of settlement. Ex. A-1, when he was 80 years of age, in favour of his brother Veerareddy conveying his entire undivided interest in the family. Veerareddy was having children and Ramireddy as affectionately disposed towards Veerareddy and his children and hence he executed the said settlement deed reserving a life interest in himself and also providing that after his lifetime his brother should maintain his wife. Thereafter Ramireddy died in January, 1965 and his brother Veerareddy too died in March, 1965. After the death of Ramireddy, difference arose between the plaintiff and the Ist defendant as a result of which the plaintiff demanded by notice partition of the properties representing the share of her husband. The defendants replied that Ramireddy executed a deed of settlement of all his properties and that the plaintiff had only a right of maintenance. The plaintiff thereupon filed the present suit for partition and recovery of her husbands share after cancelling the deed of settlement executed by her husband as having been vitiated by undue influence, and also on the ground that it is not valid under Hindu Law. The 3rd defendant one of the sons of Veerareddy filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations. Defendants 1 and 4 to 7 adopted his written statement. The court below, on a consideration of the evidence and probabilities in the case, held that the deed of settlement was a genuine document not vitiated by undue influence, but gave a decree to the plaintiff holding that the settlement deed is void and inoperative under Hindu Law in the absence of consent of the other coparceners.
(3.) In this appeal the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff sought to challenge the adverse finding given by the Court below. We have gone through the evidence and we do not see any reason to differ from finding of the lower Court on this point. Hence the only question which remains for consideration is whether the deed of settlement is valid under Hindu Law.;

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