SHAIK MALIKA Vs. BORRE DEVA MUNEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 24 of 2001 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, against the 2nd respondent and his daughter, the appellant herein, for cancellation of sale, deed dated 01-09-1998, executed by the 2nd respondent, in favour of the appellant, by declaring it as a fraudulent transaction. It was pleaded that the 2nd respondent was indebted to the 1st respondent, and several suits came to be filed for recovery of the amount. She pleaded that, in spite of filing of the suit, the 2nd respondent executed sale deed, dated 01-09-1998 in favour of his daughter, the appellant herein, with a view to keep the property away, from being proceeded against. It was her case that she came to know about the alleged sale, only when it was mentioned by the 2nd respondent in a counter filed in I.A. No. 278 of 2000, filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure, for attachment before judgment, in O.S. No. 174 of 2000.

(2.) The 2nd respondent and the appellant contested the matter by filing written-statements. The trial Court decreed the suit on 05-09-2005. The appellant filed A.S. No. 8 of 2006 in the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was dismissed on 31-08-2009. Hence this Second Appeal.

(3.) Sri K. Sudharshan Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the suit filed by the 1st respondent was not maintainable, since he has no locus standi to file it, not being a party to the document, and because no consequential relief was prayed for. He contends that the sale deed was executed much prior to the institution of suits, by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent, and the transaction was supported by consideration. Learned Counsel further submits that the trial Court made several observations, which are not at all supported by evidence, and there is nothing unnatural about a father selling the property to his daughter.