RAJA MEKA RATHI DEVI Vs. ADIDAM KANAKA VEERABHADRA RAO
LAWS(APH)-1972-8-13
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 09,1972

RAJA MEKA RATHI DEVI BEING MINOR BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SAMRAJYA LAKSHMI Appellant
VERSUS
ADIDAM KANAKA VEERABHADRA RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decrees in O.S. Nos. 58 and 59 of 1965 on the file of the Sub-Court, VijayaWada. The appellant in both the appeals Was the plaintiff in the two suits, a minor, represented by her mother as next friend. The case of the plaintiff Was that plaintiff's mother (also her next friend) settled an extent of ac.1678 of land in favour of plaintiff under Exhibit A-1 dated 5th September, 1957. The plaintiff's mother Was leasing out the land and collecting the rent from the tenants. As guardian of plaintiff she sold 8 acres to Venkateswarlu and others under Exhibits B-20, B-21, B-22 and B-23. She also Wanted to sell the remaining extent of acres 8.78 of land. The defendants, who were village officers and Who promised to help the plaintiff's mother in disposing of the land, themselves trespassed into the land. O.S.No. 58 of 1965 Was filed in respect of acres 4-39 of land and O.S.No. 59 of 1965 in respect of the remaining acres 4-39 of land. The principal contesting defendant Was Balasundra Rao. He Was 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 58 of 1965 and 3rd defendant in O.S. No. 59 of 1965. I will refer to him hereafter as the defendant. According to him the land belonged to the plaintiff's mother and not to the plaintiff. The settlement deed was a sham and nominal document executed with a view to avoid the Ceilings on Agricultural Holdings Act. The plaintiff's mother Wanted to sell her land and in the last week of May it Was settled that she should sell acre 2.75 to Venkateswarlu for Rs. 1,000, acre 2-50 to Pakeeru for Rs. 900, ac. 2.20 to C.P. Subba Rao for Rs. 900, Acre 2.20 to V. Venkatarathnam for Rs. 900 and acres 7.69 to the defendant Balsundara Rao for Rs. 2,800. She received an advance of Rs. 500 from each of the vendees and put them in possession of the respective lands purchased by them. On 31st May, 1964, all the vendees except the defendant paid the balance of purchase money and obtained sale deeds. The defendant Was able to pay a sum of Rs. 1,300 only that day. He requested the plaintiff's mother to give him two more months' time to pay the balance of purchase money. She agreed. Later when the defendant perused the sale deeds executed by the plaintiff's mother in favour of Venkateswarlu and others he noticed that the salt deeds had been executed by the plaintiff's mother not for herself but as guardian of the plaintiff. The defendant thereupon represented to the plaintiff's mother that since the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff was sham and nominal and never given effect the plaintiff's mother herself, as the real oWner, should execute the sale deed on her own account and not as guardian of the plaintiff. If she Wanted to execute the sale deed on behalf of the plaintiff then she should give security to protect the defendant. She agreed but she asked the defendant to wait for some time. Subsequently the plaintiff's mother started denying the transaction altogether. It Was not true to say that he had trespassed into the suit lands. He was put in possession on the date of the original oral agreement and he had been enjoying the lands since then
(2.) Apart from contesting the two suits filed by the plaintiff the defendant also filed O.S. No. 51 of 1967 against the plaintiff's mother for specific performance of the alleged oral agreement of sale. The three suits were tried together by the learned Subordinate Judge. O.S. Nos. 58 and 59 of 1965 were dismissed and O.S. No. 51 of 1967 Was decreed. An appeal against the decree in O.S. No. 51 of 1967 is now pending in the District Court.
(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge found that the South Vallur estate in. which the suit lands were situate was taken over by the Government under the Estates Abolition Act in 1950, that pattas for lands were issued only in 1962 and, therefore, in the period between 1950 and 1962 the plaintiff's mother had no rights of ownership which she could convey and the plaintiff acquired no rights under the settlement deed. The learned Subordinate Judge further held that the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff Was sham, nominal and not intended to be acted upon. These findings are challenged by the plaintiff in these two appeals. If these two findings are not accepted the suits will necessarily have to be decreed. That position is not disputed.;


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