KOLAPARTI VENKATAREDDI Vs. KOLAPARTI PEDA VENKATACHALAM
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
KOLAPARTI PEDA VENKATACHALAM
Click here to view full judgement.
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. -
(1.) This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The plaintiff kid the suit for a declaration that the document dated 29/05/1942, is void and inoperative as against the plaintiff. It was alleged that the plaintiff and his brother, the defendant, were divided some 20 years back. Under the said partition barber service inam lands belonging to the family were divided equally between them. The land described in the Schedule attached to the plaint fell to the share of the plaintiff. Apart from the barber service mam the plaintiff was appointed by the Government as a vettiyan. The defendant has no concern whatsoever with the office of the vettiyan or its emoluments. Taking undue advantage of the young age of the plaintiff the defendant got a document executed in his favour on 29-5-1943 under which the plaintiff was made to deliver the defendant a share of the emoluments of the vettiyan service. The suit land was taken as security for the payment of the said share. As the document is not supported by any consideration and so void, being opposed to public policy and forbidden by law, it is not binding on the plaintiff. The plain-till, therefore, sought that the document should be cancelled.
(2.) The defence raised was that although the partition had taken place about 20 years before but it was inequitable. Disputes continued and some elders intervened and brought about an arrangement which was incorporated in the document elated 29-5-1942. It was a valid family arrangement which was binding on the parties. No part of emoluments of vettiyan service was shared under the document. It was contended by the defendant that the suit is time-barred.
(3.) Upon these pleadings the trial Court framed appropriate issues and after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the suit. The trial Court found that the document dated 29-5-1942 was valid family settlement and as such binding on the parties and that the transaction was not contrary to any law or public policy. It also found that the suit was barred by the statute of limitation.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.