JUDGEMENT
A.D.V.REDDY,J. -
(1.)Appeal No. 541/63 is an appeal filed by defendants 4, 6 and 11 and Appeal No. 106/64 is an appeal filed by defendants 7 and 9 in O.S. No. 46/61 on the file of the District Court, Rajahmundry against the judgement and decree is the said suit.
(2.)The plaintiffs the widow of Garapati Venkatrayudu who died on 21-10-54 intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiff as well as defendants 1 to 3 who are his son, daughter-in-law and grandson respectively. They were living as members of the joint Hindu family and after the death of Venkatrayudu his son, the 1st defendant, became the eldest male members of the family. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration of her title to item 1 of the plaint schedule and for partition of items 2 to 12 by metes and bounds and putting her in possession of item 1 as well as her half share in items 2 to 12 and for future profits. Her contention in the plaint is that item 1 of the plaint schedule was gifted to her and her husband even prior to their marriage by her maternal grand-father, Bull Venkanna, under a deed dated 17-3-1919, that she and her husband owned that item jointly and after his death she became the sole owner of that item, that on the death of her husband she became entitled to the interest of her husband in items 2 to 12 under the Hindu Women "?s Rights to Property Act and after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act she had acquired absolute rights in her husband "?s property that is to say a one half share in items 2 to 12 of the schedule property, that the 1st defendant had executed a settlement deed dated 29-6-60 conveying items 1 to 4 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and had put them in possession thereof, that this is a sham transaction and as such is void, that the 1st defendant bad also alienated items 5 to 12 in favour of defendants 4 to 10 without any justifiable necessity or binding purpose and these defendants purchased the same with full notice of the interest of the plaintiff in these properties and these alienation are collusive and are in no way binding on her and hence the suit. She also contended that items 1 to 3 and 5 to 9 are wet lands in which paddy is raised and items 10 to 12 are meraka lands in which paddy is raised with rain and tank water, while item 4 is ancestral house and she is entitled to future profits form the same.
(3.)Defendants 2 and 3 in whose favour items 1 to 4 are alleged to have been settled by the 1st defendant, contend that cash of Rs. 4000/- and Kasulaperu presented to the 2nd defendant by her father at the time of her marriage were entrusted to Venkatrayudu, the husband of the plaintiff and he in his turn executed a gift deed in respect of Ac. 1.50 cents in S. No. 103/1 towards that amount, but did not get it registered and there, fore her husband i.e. the 1st defendant executed the settlement deed dated 29-6-60 on her demanding for the same and hence it is binding upon the plaintiff.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.