PALLA SAMPATH KUMARI Vs. KINTHALA VENKATA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT :The plaintiff in O.S.No.58 of 1984, on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, is the appellant. She filed the suit for declaration that the relinquishment deed dated 18-7-1980 [Ex.A-6] executed by her in favour of the 1st respondent (1st defendant) in respect of the plaint 'A' schedule property, hereinafter called the suit property, is not true and is vitiated by fraud, and as such, she continues to be the owner thereof and for the consequential relief of possession of the suit properly by ejecting the defendants [respondents 1 and 2] therefrom.

(2.) The case of the appellant, is that the suit property was purchased by her mother on 16.4.1928 and so consequent on the death of her mother in 1947, as per the Law of succession at that time, she alone became entitled to the suit property absolutely and the 1st respondent who was managing all the properties inherited by her from her mother, fraudulently obtained Ex.A-6 relinquishment deed dated 18-7-1980 from her and sold a part of her property shown in the plaint B Schedule to the 2nd respondent. Since Ex.A-6 relinquishment deed was obtained by 1st respondent from her by playing fraud the same is liable to be setaside. 1 st respondent remained exparte. The case of the 2nd respondent is that the 1st respondent, with a view to gain unlawfully at his expense filed the suit in the name of the plaintiff. In support of her case, appellant examined herself as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. 2nd respondent examined her husband as DW-1 and eight other witnesses as DWs.2 to 9 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-16. The trial Court holding that appellant failed to establish that Ex.A-6 relinquishment deed dated 18-7-1980 is vitiated by fraud, dismissed the suit. Hence, the appeal by plaintiff.

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