MADAMANCHI VENKATASUBBAIAH Vs. MADAMANCHI SUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. His suit to set aside a summary order passed in E.A.No. 2158/45 in O.S.No. 389/45 and to recover possession of the suit land from the defendants, etc., was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, in appeal against the judgment of the District Munsif of Guntur decreeing the suit. The facts necessary to appreciate the points arising in this Second Appeal may be briefly narrated. The plaintiff claiming to be a donee from one Ramayya filed O.S. No. 389/45 in the Court of the District Munsif, Guntur, for ejectment and for arrears of rent against a lessee whose lease expired on 4th July, 1945. After obtaining the decree, the plaintiff went to take possession of the property in execution thereof. The third defendant putting forward a lease from the second defendant caused him obstruction. He unsuccessfully moved the Court for the removal of obstruction. This led him to institute the present suit.

(2.) The second defendant is the widow of one Nagayya the brother of Ramayya who was the donor of the plaintiff, the first defendant being the widow of his donor. The gift is evidenced by Exhibit A-4, dated 24th May, 1943. Two years later, Ramayya the settlor sought to revoke the document on the ground that he was not being maintained as arranged between the parties under the document. A few days thereafter the settlor died. A suit was filed by the widow of Ramayya for a declaration that the gift in favour of the present plaintiff was inoperative as. it stood revoked and also for the reason that it was obtained by undue influence This suit was dismissed as the donor could not validly cancel the document. The present suit is filed on the assumption that the whole family property belonged to Ramayya as Nagayya predeceased him.

(3.) Various defences were raised to the action among which were that there was a division between Ramayya and Nagayya prior to the latter's death at which the suit property was allotted to Nagayya's share, that ever since that date it had been in possession and enjoyment of Nagayya and subsequently his widow the second defendant through her lessees and that the gift deed was ineffective as it was revoked by the donor before his death.