KETHARAJU RAJESHWARI Vs. KANTHAMRAJU VARALAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The action out of which this second appeal has arisen was laid by the 1st respondent who is the plaintiff before the District Munsif, Guntur for recovery of possession of certain lands and for Rs. 200.00 as amount due for Makta for the year 1954-55 and for future mesne profits. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the suit property belonged to one Pulliah who under a will conveyed the title to his wife Venkayamma. After Pulliahs death, Venkayamma became the absolute owner of the suit property. As there was no one to look after Venkayamma she looked for help to her brother, Lingiah. As a consideration for the assistance and service Venkayamma conveyed the suit property to her brother, Lingiah through a gift deed dated 13-6-1924 and put Lingiah in possession. Although Venkayamma had adopted a boy, Sitaramanjaneyula, but the suit property was not vested in the adopted boy. It was alleged that as the adopted son did not look after Venkayarnma, Lingiah executed a settlement deed on 9-10-1924 in favour of his sister, Venkayamma through which she was allowed to enjoy the usufruct of the property for her life without any right for alienating the same. It was also stipulated that the property would revert after her death to Lingaiah. Venkayamma died on 12-11-1954. The 2nd respondent was the lessee from Venkayarnma for the year 1954-55 on a rent of Rs. 50.00 per acre. As the lessee failed to pay the amount for that year, the plaintiff who be-came the heir after Venkayammas death and entitled to the suit property claimed the lease amount as well as the possession from the 2nd respondent, who instead of handing over the possession and paying the amount joined hands with the 1st defendant in an attempt to deprive the plaintiff of her right.

(2.) The 1st defendant denied that Venkayamma ever executed any gift deed in favour of Lingiah and that Lingiah had settled the property for life in favour of Venkayamma. She alleged that both the documents although registered appeared to be fictitious. She claimed that Venkayamma was the absolute owner of the property and that it was gifted away by her to the 1st defendant through a deed dated 22-4-1953. She claimed that the and respondent is her lessee and not that of Venkayarnma.

(3.) The second respondent however alleged that he was the lessee of Venkayamma and that her power of attorney holder collected the lease amount from him. He admitted that he has to pay Rs. 240.00 for the year 1955-56. He stated that the area under lease was six acres and as the plaintiff was claiming four acres, the defendant is liable proportionately. He also stated that the 1st defendant gave him a notice on 12-2-1955 putting her claim forward to the land in dispute on the basis of a gift deed dated 22/04/1953.