PODUGU JAYALAKSHMI Vs. SHAHJEDI BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant filed the suit initially for cancellation of the sale deed dated 29-1-1975 executed by her in favour of the respondent in respect of the plaint schedule property. Subsequently she got the plaint amended to declare her date of birth as 11-3-1959 and consequently to declare the sale deed dated 29-1-1975, executed by her in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the respondent is null and void.

(2.) The case, in brief, of the appellant is that after the death of Narayanamma, the first wife of her husband Podugu Ramulu, she was given in marriage to him on 5-5-1974 and since her husband died intestate, shortly after their marriage, on 4-6-1974, she inherited all his properties, including the plaint schedule property, and that the husband of the respondent and others, by playing fraud on her, got the sale deed dated 29-1-1975, in respect of the plaint schedule property executed by her with false recitals for a meager consideration of Rs.30,000/-, though in fact no consideration was paid to her. The case of the respondent is that the sale deed dated 29-1-1975 was obtained after payment of adequate consideration of Rs.30,000.00 as mentioned in the sale deed, and that no fraud was played on the appellant and that the date of birth of the appellant is not 11-3-1959 and that she was aged more than 22 years by the date of the sale deed dated 29-1-1975. On the above pleadings as many as 8 issues and 5 additional issues were framed for trial by the trial Court. In support of her case the appellant besides examining herself as P.W.1, examined four other witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 5 and marked Exs.A1 to A50. In support of her case, the respondent besides examining herself as DW.1, examined four other witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 5 and marked Exs.B1 to B36. Exs.X1 to X5 were marked through witnesses. The trial Court, found against the appellant on all the issues and dismissed the suit by the decree and Judgment under appeal. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.

(3.) The point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to the declaration sought.