APPANNA Vs. JAMI VENKATAPPADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and' decree in O. S. No. 2 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chicacole. The properties which are comprised in this suit belonged to one Vaddi Varahalu, the mother of the plaintiff, as her stridhana and on the death of Vaddi Varahalu about the year 1914 the plaintiff became entitled to them as her stridhanam heir. She was then a minor aged about 8 years. It is stated in the plaint that as her father was a man of weak intellect, the first defendant and his brother Kamanna who are her maternal uncles took possession of her properties and entered into the management thereof on her behalf. The plaintiff was subsequently married to the first defendant. On 16-8-1925 she executed a deed of settlement Ex. B 3 whereby she transferred all the suit properties to the first defendant and his brother Kamanna by way of gift. It is this deed that is the subject-matter of attack by the plaintiff in this action. The plaintiff alleges that the first defendant and his brother represented to her that the deed was a general power of attorney authorising them to manage the estate, that she did not read it nor was it read to her and that she executed it in the thought and belief that it was only a power of attorney. She goes on to state that she lived with her husband till 1939, that in that year he drove her and her children out of the house and that she became aware of the fraud practised on her only on 29-8-1944. In paragraph 10 of the plaint it is stated that the "settlement deed dated 16-8-1925 was vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation of the first respondent and his brother and as such it confers no title on them to the plaint properties" and that the suit is laid for recovery of possession with mesne profits. Conformably to these allegations, the plaintiff prays for a declaration that the settlement deed dated 16-3-1925 is vitiated by fraud and undue influence and misrepresentation and that it confers no title on the respondents; for an order that the suit settlement deed be set aside and for a decree for possession and mesne profits. The second defendant is the widow of Kamanna who is the brother of the first defendant and one of the donees under Ex. B 3. Both the defendants contest the suit on the merits and they also plead that it is barred by limitation. On these pleadings, the following issues were framed:

(2.) WHETHER the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit properties within 12 years prior to suit?

(3.) WHETHER the suit is in time?