U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. - (1.) This appeal is preferred by plaintiff aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 24.09.2001 in O.S.No.55 of 1995 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge dismissed the suit for setting aside the relinquishment deed dated 15.03.1971 and to direct the defendants to deliver possession of suit schedule property.
(2.) The parties in the appeal are referred as they stood before the Trial Court.
(3.) The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) Plaintiff and 1st defendant are wife and husband. Plaintiffs case is that she purchased the suit schedule property from Achukolu Raghavaiah under a registered sale deed dated 24.06.1967 with the money given by her parents towards Pasupu Kumkuma; the 1st defendant had aversion towards her and necked out from the marital house. The 1st defendant filed divorce petition O.P.No.17 of 1990 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Chirala for dissolution of marriage. While the matter stood thus the 1st defendant, just a week prior to marriage of their eldest daughterChandra Prabhavathi (2nd defendant), informed plaintiff that they have to mortgage the suit schedule property to meet the marriage expenses and made her to believe his words and played fraud and obtained registered relinquishment deed on 15.03.1971. Hence, the suit. b) The 1st defendant filed written statement. While denying the plaint averments, he pleaded that suit is barred by limitation, as the same ought to be filed within three years from the date of registration whereas the suit was filed 27 years after its execution inspite of plaintiff having full knowledge about execution of the document. The plaintiff filed M.C.No.10 of 1990 on the file of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala for maintenance wherein she averred that at the time of marriage of eldest daughter in 1971, 1st defendant beat her and coerced her to execute the document. Quite contrary to the above stand, she deposed that at the time of marriage of their eldest daughter the 1st defendant threatened her that he would not sit at the marriage unless the house was kept in his name. The house property was purchased by him with his own earnings and he himself paid the sale consideration to the vendor and therefore, the plaintiff has no right over the suit property. The plaintiff began to live with Kondaiah openly so, he filed divorce petition which is pending. The 1st defendant orally gifted the suit property to his eldest daughterChandra Prabhavathi towards Pasupukumkuma on l6.07.1986 and delivered possession and also executed a registered settlement deed dated 17.05.1993. c) D.2 filed written statement in similar lines. d) Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of her right and title? 2) Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation? 3) To what relief? Additional issue framed on 29.07.2000. Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled for the suit property by way of oral gift deed dated 16.07.1986 and also under registered settlement deed dated 17.05.1993 as prayed for? The following issues have been recasted on the material available on the file of this Court are as follows: 1) Whether the relinquishment deed dated 15.03.1971 in favour of Bhrugumalla Raghunayaka Gupta is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? 2) Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation? 3) Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled for the suit property by way of oral gift deed dated 16.07.1986 and also under settlement deed dated 17.05.1993 as prayed for? 4) To what relief? e) PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A31 were marked on behalf of plaintiff. On behalf of defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B33 were marked. f) The trial Court in its judgment observed that PW1 (plaintiff) failed to establish that sale consideration under Ex.A1 was paid by her and DW1 (1st defendant) played fraud and obtained Ex.A2 relinquishment deed under the guise of mortgage deed. The trial Court further observed that suit was barred by limitation as it was not filed within three years from the date of knowledge and ultimately dismissed the suit. Hence the appeal by plaintiff.;