YELETI SRIDEVI MANIKUMARI Vs. MALIREDDY KRISHNAVENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dtd. 15/9/2011, passed in O.S.No.699 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

(2.) The suit is filed by the 1st respondent herein against respondent No.2/1st defendant and the appellants 1 and 2/defendants 2 & 3 for recovery of amount under four promissory notes, dtd. 18/5/2007, 21/5/2007, 22/5/2007 and 1/11/2007, all for an amount of Rs.1,54,000.00 each allegedly executed by the 1st defendant agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum. The plaintiff fastened the liability against the defendants 2 and 3 who are the daughters of the 1st defendant, on the ground that they have full knowledge of the debts of the 1st defendant, yet created a partition deed, dtd. 6/12/2008 to defeat and delay the debts lawfully due to the plaintiff; and, as such, the partition deed is illegal, invalid and not binding on the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the 1 st defendant executed two gift deeds, dtd. 6/12/2008, in favour of defendants 2 & 3 and thus, they are universal donees since there is no other property to the 1st defendant and liable to the suit claim.

(3.) The 1st defendant filed written statement denying the suit claim and the alleged promissory notes including borrowal of any amount and further contended that Uppuluri Subba Rao who is the uncle of the plaintiff lent Rs.1,50,000.00 in 1998 and renewed the promissory notes for higher amount by including compounded interest at his choice and further that Uppuluri Subba Rao obtained such promissory notes in the name of his family members and relatives and thus, the suit promissory notes are not fully supported by consideration. It is also further pleaded that the 1st defendant agreed to settle the debts due to the plaintiff, but as this defendant sustained loss in the rice mill business, the plaintiff filed the suit under an apprehension that the defendants may avoid discharge of the debt and got attached the properties of the defendants 2 & 3 intentionally knowing that this defendant had given the properties to them at the time of their marriages and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and pattadar passbooks were also issued in their favour long back and they have been paying land revenue in their names, but no registered document was executed at that time. The 1st defendant further contended that in the gift deeds, it is recited that the property was already delivered and thus, the gift deeds are valid and not executed to defeat the debt. Thus, the 1st defendant contended that the defendants 2 & 3 are not liable to the suit claim. It is further pleaded that after receipt of notice, there was a settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff intended to purchase the rice mill or the land of this defendant, but subsequently, she turned round and filed this suit only to cause loss to this defendant.