MADAMANCHI VENKATASUBBAIAH Vs. MADAMANCHI SUBBAMMA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Referred Judgements :-
SAKHARAM KRISHNAJI V. MADAN KRISHNAJI
RANU V. LAXMMA RAO
PARAMA SIVA UDAYAN V. KRISHNA PADAYACHI
SUBBA RAO V. MAHALAKSHAMMA
BAGESWARI CHARAN SINGH V. JAGAR MATH KUARI
SUBRAMANIAM V. LUTCHMAN
RAMAYYA V. ACHAMMA
VECRARAGHAVA RAO V. GOPALA RAO
RAMU CHETTY V. PANCHAMMAL
BAPAYYA V. RAMAKRISHNAYYA
LEHNA SINGH VS. RULIA
BADRI PRASAD VS. ABDUL KARIM
Click here to view full 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
(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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.