SURANENI LAKSHMI Vs. B VENKATA DURGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife of the deceased-first plaintiff who is the second plaintiff in O.S.No.191 of 1986 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, is the appellant herein. THE suit was filed by the deceased-first plaintiff for declaration of his title to "A" and"B" schedule properties claiming that he has acquired those properties at different times from his earnings and also from the sale proceeds of the joint family lands. THE allegations were made in the plaint that his second sister's daughter was married to him in 1974 and sold away his ancestral house at Borragudem in 1975 and shifted his family to Chandragudem by the end of 1975-1976; he discontinued his self-cultivation and had leased out the properties to several persons. According to the plaintiff, apart from the leases given to others, in May 1976 the plaintiff leased out item Nos.6 to 8 of plaint "B" schedule properties to the second defendant on an annual lease of Rs.750/- for a period of two(2) years and the second defendant continued default and surrendered the land to the plaintiff in February-1978 and thereafter he gave the land on lease to Sri G.Sobhanadri.

(2.) IT was further pleaded that in February-1977 he received balance of the sale consideration after the sale of the house and when plaintiff wanted to purchase land, the second defendant approached him and persuaded him and therefore he lent a sum of Rs.5,500/- and executed a promissory note in February,1977. The promissory note was scribed by one Kummarikunta Satyanarayana. The second defendant therefore was in arrears of lease amount and also the pronote debt.

(3.) THE defendants filed written statement denying most of the allegations about the claim of the plaintiff that he is innocent and illiterate and that the defendants have no capacity to purchase the properties and that the documents are obtained by fraud and coercion and thereby they are vitiated. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has executed documents voluntarily and for consideration and there are no grounds to challenge the above sale transactions. Scribe and attesters are respectable people. According to the defendants, the second defendant owns a small amount of debt to one M.Venkata Satyam and when he resorted to unnecessary suit, he has sought for instalments. THE second defendant is an ardent agriculturist and cultivated lands on lease. He has saved money and lent to others. He has got sound financial capacity. THE defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the property and the suit as framed is not maintainable. THE court fee paid is not correct. THErefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.