PRIYA ADILAKSHMI Vs. PRIYA VENKATAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S. No.65 of 1982 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Ichapuram is the appellant in this second appeal. She filed the suit for declaration of her title to Ac. 1.50 cents out of Ac.4.49 cents in Kapaskuddi village, within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule appended to the plaint, hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property', and for recovery of possession thereof from the respondents, alleging that she became entitled to the suit property by virtue of Ex.A-1 settlement deed dated 3-11-1980 executed by her husband Krishna Rao in her favour and that the respondents highhandedly dispossessed her from the suit property on the ground that her husband Krishna Rao executed Ex.B-2 settlement deed dated 9-9-1981 in favour of her father- in-law, and on the death of her father-in-law they became entitled to the suit property by virtue of Ex.B-5 Will dated 19-4-1982 executed by her father-in-law and since Ex.A-1 was accepted by her Ex.B-2 and Ex.B-5 are not binding on her. Respondents filed a written statement contending that Ex.A-1 is a sham and nominal document and hence is invalid and since Krishna Rao executed Ex.B-2 settlement deed in favour of his father, and since the father of Krishna Rao prior to his death executed Ex.B-5 Will bequeathing his properties to them appellant has no right or title over the suit property. Appellant after examining herself as P.W.1, examined two other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of respondents, first respondent examined herself as D.W.1 and three more witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-6. The trial Court held in favour of the appellant and decreed the suit. On appeal by the respondents in A.S. No.28 of 1986, the learned Subordinate Judge, Sompeta reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit holding that by virtue of Ex.A-1, appellant did not acquire any right to the suit property because Ex.B-1, under which the father-in-law of the appellant settled his share in the joint family property on his son Krishna Rao, is a void transaction.

(2.) The point for consideration is whether Ex.B-1 settlement deed executed by the father-in-law of the appellant in favour of his son Krishna Rao, (husband of the appellant) in respect of the suit property and other properties is null and void?

(3.) Before taking up the point for consideration, it should be kept in view that if Ex.A-1 is true and valid, under Ex.B-2 the father in law of the appellant cannot and would not acquire any right over the suit property for him to bequeath the same to the respondents under Ex.B-5. So even if Ex.B-2 and Ex.B-5 were executed by the husband and father-in-law of the appellant respectively, they would not have an effect on the title of the appellant to the suit property, of course if Ex.A-1 is a valid document.