SATHI SATTEMMA Vs. SATHI SUBBI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Letters Patent Appeals are from the judgment of our brother, Srinivasachari, J. in S. A. Nos. 734 of 1956 and 19 of 1957 which arose out of O. S. Nos. 332 and 333 of 1953. The parties to both the suits are the same and are related to each other. Defendant No. 1 is the son of defendant No. 2 who is no other than the plaintiffs fathers sisters son. The reliefs claimed in both the suit are similar, to wit, setting aside the deeds executed by the-plaintiff. In O. S. No. 332 of 1953 the plaintiff seeks la set aside the settlement deed dated 2-7-1952 execute by her in respect of a house and in O. S. No. 33 of 195i she seeks to set aside a relinquishment deed dated 3-12-1951 as regards her life interest in two items of property of which one is a site 112 sq. yards in area with a thatched house thereon in Pentapadu agraharam and the other is an arable land Ac. 1-64 in extent situate in Polumuru village.

(2.) The facts, according to the plaint allegations are these:-- Plaintiff was married quite young and in or about a couple of years, she lost her husband. She had not attained puberty by that time. Her parents nevertheless did not choose to get her re-married. Defendant No. 2 was a resident of the same village. By reason of their close relationship, they had occasions to move freely with each other. Young as they were ere long illicit intimacy tended to develop between them. As 2nd defendants wife happened to be then in the family way, he asked plaintiffs father who was ignorant of illicit connection between them to permit the plaintiff to go to his house in order to help his wife in her confinement. The father agreed and the 2nd defendant took the plaintiff to his house in October 1940. This further cemented their intimacy. Their relations grew so strong that she could not leave him. The plaintiffs case is -that taking advantage of this position, 2nd defendant got a settlement deed dated 15-3-1941 executed by her in respect of certain properties of hers in favour or his minor son, the 1st defendant. This however gave publicity to their secret relations and the plaintiffs fatter and her relations gave up visiting her. Cut off thus font all her relatives, she was brought under the influence and complete domination of 2nd defendant who after sometime asked her to execute a power-of-attorney to manage her property so that she need not come out of the house. She-accordingly executed a power-of-attorney on 3-12-1951. She did rot know then that she was executing a deed relinquishing her rights in the property. The matter did not end at that. After some time on 18-1-1952 she had purchased a house for a sum of Rs. 2,5007- and it was at a distance of 100 yards from the thatched house where she was put up. The 2nd defendant represented to her that a separate power-of-attorney was required for this upstair building also. On 2-7-1952, after making her drink to the point of intoxication, he got her thumb impression affixed on a document which was later on registered. The plaintiff did net know that it was a relinquishment deed in favour of defendant No. 1 with regard to her house. A year later, when she intended to make some provision for her brothers daughter, Veeramma, she was told that she had no longer any property which she could dispose of. Then she suspected the conduct of the 2nd defendant and was disillusioned when the copies of the documents were obtained. She then brought the suits.

(3.) Both the defendants denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. The contention of the 2nd defendant was that the story of illicit intimacy was false, scandalous and defamatory. Plaintiff herself used to come to his house on account of her relationship with a view to assist his family. She had no children and was therefore fond of 1st defendant. On account of her affection, she of her own accord executed the settlement deed Ex. B-l dated 15-3-1941 in his favour reserving a life interest for herself and making demise of only vested remainder. Several years thereafter, on account of her ill-heath and other reasons she required that the 2nd defendant should look after all her affairs, and for that purpose executed the power-of-attorney, Ex. B-2 and got the same registered on 3-12-1951. On that very day, she further executed Ex. B-3 in favour of 1st defendant giving up her life interest in some of the properties covered by the settlement deed dated 15-3-1941 in lieu of Rs. 500.00-. This demise was made solely to benefit the 1st defendant. Some time thereafter, she executed Ex. 8-1 in favour of 1st defendant in relation to the house that she purchased. It is not true that the 2nd defendant made her drink and got this settlement deed executed on 2-7-1952. It was her voluntary act. She was fully alive to the contents of the document and it is false to say that she came to know of the contents later on.