LAWS(APH)-2012-9-34

MUDAPAKA MALLESWARAO Vs. CHENCHBINADA SATYAVATHI

Decided On September 25, 2012
MUDAPAKA MALLESWARAO Appellant
V/S
CHENCHBINADA SATYAVATHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.25 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram against the judgment and decree dated 29-9-1993 passed by the said Court.

(2.) DEFENDANT No.1 is the elder sister of the plaintiff, defendant no.2 is the daughter of defendant 1 and defendants 3 to 5 are the grand sons of D.1.

(3.) THE plaintiff contended that he agreed to the said suggestion and entrusted plaint A and C schedule properties to them on condition that they should hand them over to him whenever required by him, that he also handed over Ex.A.1 to the first defendant to be shown to the officers and staff of the Peddapuram Municipality whenever required in connection with the exchange of sites in Items 1 to 3 of the plaint A schedule property and the purchase of plaint C schedule property and that during that sale transaction, the documents remained with the first defendant. He contended that the first defendant and her husband later suggested to the plaintiff that it would give good dividends if some money was invested and some new houses were constructed in the plaint A Schedule and rented out, that the plaintiff liked the idea and sent them huge amounts off and on amounting to Rs.25,000/- in all between 1956 and 1970 for improvements of the then existing house and for construction of new houses in the plaint A schedule property, and on the basis of the said investments made by the plaintiff, the original thatched house in item no.1 of the plaint A schedule was converted by the first defendant and her husband into a Mangalore tiled house, that they extended the adjacent thatched house, that they constructed two Mangalore tiled houses in item 2 of the plaint A schedule, one Mangalore tiled house with a furnace for melting tin and a thatched house adjacent and thatched cattle shed opposite to item 3 of the plaint A schedule property and that the plaintiff had supplied wooden rafters, doors, windows, doorways and almyrahs which he had got for his share in the partition for being used in the said constructions.