PEDAMALLU RAMANAMMA Vs. ARISENKULA APPALANARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate litigation between a mother and her only daughter. The mother filed a suit. O. S. No. 40 of 1956 against the daughter claiming a certain house as her own and that she let it out to her daughter on a monthly rent of Rs. 30 and sought eviction of the daughter from the house. The daughter contended that the sale deed by which the mother purchased the site on which the house stands from the (daughter's) husband was a nominal one and that the house was constructed by her and her husband from out of their funds and that she was not a tenant. The mother also filed another suit. O. S. No. 14 of 1957 for recovery of certain furniture and utensils and for the rent. The Trial Court found that the sale deed was not nominal that the daughter as well as her husband contributed towards the construction of the house and that it was the joint property of all the three and that the tenancy pleaded by the mother was false. Both the suits were dismissed by the Trial Court. On appeal the High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the mother's appeal in O. S. No. 40 of 1956 only in respect of possession. The appeal against the judgment in O. S. No. 14 of 1957 was dismissed. The daughter has, therefore, filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court on certificate granted by the High Court.

(2.) Exhibit A-2 is the sale deed dated 14th September, 1948 for a site of the extent of 10 cents purchased by the respondent (mother) from the appellant's husband for Rs. 200/-. A sum of Rs. 100/- was paid before the Sub-Registrar, Rs. 100/- having been already paid. The appellant's husband had a land 20 cents in extent and it is out of these 20 cents that he sold 10 cents to his mother-in-law, respondent. The payment of Rupees 100/- before him is endorsed by the Sub-Registrar on the sale deed itself. If it was merely a nominal sale deed there was no reason way only 10 cents out of 20 cents owned by the appellant's husband was sold under Ex. A-2. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the sale deed is not nominal but is a genuine transaction and we see no reason to take a different view.

(3.) The next question is whether the house was constructed by the appellant and her husband with their moneys. The Trial Court held that the construction of the house was a joint enterprise by the appellant, the respondent and her second husband. The High Court took the view that the appellant might have advanced some money towards the construction of the house but that it did not confer any right on her in respect of the house. We shall now discuss the evidence on this point in brief.