KASTURI LAKSHMIBAYAMMA Vs. SABNIVIS VENKOBA RAO
LAWS(APH)-1969-3-5
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 14,1969

KASTURI LAKSHMIBAYAMMA Appellant
VERSUS
SABNIVIS VENKOBA RAO Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JOHN WALLINGFORD V. MUTUAL SOCIETY [REFERRED TO]
MATADIN V. AHMAD ALI [REFERRED TO]
SEETHARAMAMA V. APPIAH [REFERRED TO]
THAYAMMAL V. KUPPANNA KOUNDAN [REFERRED TO]
MAYILASAMI CHETTIAR V. KALIMAAL [REFERRED TO]
MUTHUKUMARA CHETTY V. ANTHONY UDAYAN [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMY PILLAI V. KASINATHA IYER [REFERRED TO]
CHENNAPPA V. ONKARAPPA [REFERRED TO]
SRIRAMULU V. PUNDARIKAKSHAYYA [REFERRED TO]
ETHILAVULU AMMAL VS. PETHAKKAL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PALLELA KONNARAO ALIAS NALLAMARI VS. KARRI SURYANARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-1983-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
P SATYANARAYANA VS. P LAKSHMANASWAMY [LAWS(APH)-1996-8-91] [REFERRED TO]
KALVACHERLA BALA TRIPURA SUNDARAMMA VS. RACHURI SUBBARAYUDA [LAWS(APH)-2006-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
KALAVACHERLA BALA TRIPURA SUNDARAMMA VS. RACHURI SUBARAYUDU [LAWS(APH)-2007-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
ATHIAPPA GOUNDER VS. A MOHAN [LAWS(MAD)-1994-12-46] [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA TRADING CO COIMBATORE VS. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYAT TIRUCHIRAPALLI [LAWS(MAD)-1999-2-58] [REFERRED TO]
PEDIREDLA LAKSHMINARAYANA ALIAS MANDONARAYANA VS. PEDIREDLA SIMHACHALAM [LAWS(APH)-2007-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. M/S.MAA KALI SUPPLY AGENCY [LAWS(CAL)-2012-7-146] [REFERRED TO]
AMANAT HUSSAIN AND ORS. VS. SAHIDA BEGUM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-7-13] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Parthasarathi, J. - (1.)The main question for decision in this appeal relates to a plea of limitation , which along with other defences, was successfully urged in the trial Court to non-suit the plaintiff. The plaintiff, and the 12th defendant who tool no part in the proceeding, are sisters and their father is the Ist defendant in this action. Their mother died in 1932. At a time when both the daughters were still minors, the Ist defendant conveyed on 11-7-1938 under six separate deeds, the property belonging to them to the defendants 4 to 9. He purported to act on their behalf as guardian though by that time both of them were married. The plaintiff, who is younger in age, was however still living with her father, the consummation of the marriage apparently not having taken place, by the date of the sales. They are impugned on the ground that they were not justified by necessity. Nor were they effected for the benefit of the minor or for proper price. The father is charged with having acted in bad faith and the sale proceeds had not been accounted for.
(2.)The sales that are impeached were effected in 1938 and this action in forma pauper is was commenced on 20/04/1954. the age of the plaintiff was given as 27 years as on the date of the plaint. That would imply that she attained the age of majority in 1945. The plaintiff avers that the several acts relating to management by the Ist defendant and the nature of her title were concealed form her knowledge and that the plaintiff was told when she questioned her father that there was no property of her mother. The plea advanced in the pleading is that by reason of the fraud and deception practiced by her father, she was kept in the dark as to her right to sue and she came to know about her right only about the middle of the year 1947. The suit is thus said to be saved form the bar of limitation. No relief for setting aside of the sales is prayed for and the plaintiff asked for partition and possession of her half share of the property. Her sister did not join in the suit. Nor did she support the case of the plaintiff by appearance at the trial or participation in the proceedings. The Ist defendant denied the charges of fraud and deception. He asserted that the sales were effected with the approval and knowledge of the plaintiffs husband and father-in-law and the price realised was adequate. The sales were effected because it was beneficial to sell the property. The moiety of sale proceeds of the plaintiff was paid over to the plaintiffs father-in-law and husband. The alliances filed a separate pleading and resisted the suit.
(3.)The Subordinate Judge, Ongole, who tried the suit held that the suit is barred by limitation. The learned Judge also held that the sales in dispute were effected by the Ist defendant as guardian of the plaintiff and the 12th defendant and that the transactions are valid and binding on the plaintiff . The learned Judge also found that there was a deliberate over-valuation of the suit property by the plaintiff and that at the time of the institution of the suit, the market value of the property was about Rs. 500.00 per acre.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.