GARA SURPPADU Vs. PANDRANKI RAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this appeal are the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 1/77 in the Court of the District Munsif, Rajam. The plaintiffs filed the suit for possession of one gold nanu weighing about six tolas and one gold patteda weighing about 3-1/2 tolas (hereinafter referred to as the jewellery) which was kept with Gara Parayya and Gara Ramulu, defendants 1 and 2 in the suit for safe custody by the late Rajapu Chinnammi, who, the plaintiffs claimed, gifted the jewellery in their favour. Defendants 3 to 6 impleaded themselves as necessary parties in the suit claiming that they are entitled to the jewellery on the death of the late Chinnammi as her heirs and consequently claimed that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the possession of the jewellery.

(2.) the question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether there is a valid gift of the jewellery by Chinnammi in favour of the appellants. If it is held that there is a valid gift then the appellants will be entitled to claim possession of the jewellery. It is necessary to set out a few facts for the purpose. It appears Chinnammi became a widow when she was very young and lived with the plaintiffs till she died. There is no dispute that he plaintiffs looked after the said Chinnammi with all care and affection. This is borne out by the two settlements deeds executed and registered on 23-6-71 by the said Chinnammi in favour of the appellants wherein she referred to the fact that she was looked after by the appellants during her lifetime and, therefore, she was settling her properties on them. It is claimed that the jewellery in question was deposited by the said Chinnammi with Gara Parayya and Gara Ramulu, defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. Defendants 1 and 2 admitted that the jewellery was deposited with them by Chinnammi. They were in custody of the jewellery and they had no interest whatsoever in the je3. The appellants claim that Chinnammi had been ill for sometime and decided to gift the jewellery in question in favour of the appellants and, therefore, sent for defendants 1 and 2 for purpose of taking the jewellery from their safe custody and deliver the same to the appellants. At the relevant time, it is claimed, defendants 1 and 2 were away from the village on their business and were not expected to return for quite a few days. It was contended that Chinnammi sent for Ponnada Satyanarayana, Bangaru Tavudu and Rajapu Ramanna who were known to her and in their presence made a declaration of the gift of the jewellery in favour of the appellants. At the time when she made the oral declaration of gift of the jewellery the appellants were also present and it is stated that the gift of the jewellery made by Chinnammi was accepted by the appellants. It appears Chinnammi directed the above mentioned three persons in whose presence the declaration of gift was made to get in touch with defendants 1 and 2 with whom the jewellery was lying for safe custody and ensure that possession of the jewellery is delivered to the appellants. It is said that within 4 to 5 days after making the above declaration of gift Chinnammi died. Defendants 1 and 2 admitted that they were in possession of the jewellery in question but they were unable to give delivery of the same to the appellants because the respondents herein have set up a claim that they are the heirs of the late Chinnammi and, therefore, they are entitled to the jewellery. In view of the rival claims for the jewellery by the appellants on the one hand and by the respondents on the other defendants 1 and 2 did not think it expedient to deliver the jewellery to the appellants or to the persons whom Chinnammi directed to take possession of the jewellery from defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 1 and 2 pleaded that since they have no interest in the jewellery in question they are willing to deliver possession to whomsoever the Court ordered. They deposited the jewellery in the Court. Thus the question before the trial Court resolved itself to this, namely, whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the jewellery or the respondents are entitled to the possession of the same. It may also be stated that the appellants have set up an alternative claim before the trial Court that they were the nearest heirs to the late Chinnammi and, therefore, even in that view they are entitled to the possession of the jewellery. The trial court framed appropriate issues and examined inter alia Ponnada Satyanarayana and Bangaru Tavudu, P. Ws. 3 and 4, before whom Chinnammi allegedly made the declaration of the gift of the jewellery in favour of the appellants. On a consideration of the evidence the trial court came to the conclusion that the gift of jewellery by the deceased Chinnammi in favour of the appellants was established and, therefore, they were entitled to the possession of the jewellery. In the result the trial court decreed the suit filed by the appellants against the respondents herein holding that the appellants were entitled to the jewellery.

(3.) In coming to the conclusions that there was a valid gift of the jewellery by Chinnammi in favour of the appellants the trial court has taken into consideration the following undisputed facts:- (a) that from very early days the appellants took care of and offered protection to Chinnammi until she died very old and this was acknowledged by Chinnammi herself in the settlement deeds executed by her settling her immovable properties in favour of the appellants. (b) that there was no evidence whatsoever to show that the respondents had ever looked after the welfare of Chinnammi during her lifetime and that their claim to the jewellery is based solely on the near relationship to the deceased Chinnammi; (c) that P. ws. 3 and 4 categorically admitted in their evidence that Chinnammi made a declaration of gift of the jewellery in question in their presence in favour of the appellants, when the appellants were also present personally, and directed them to ensure that defendants 1 and 2 delivered the jewellery to the appellants; (d) that at the relevant time when Chinnammi wanted to deliver the jewellery to the appellants pursuant to the declaration of gift made by her, defendants 1 and 2 were admittedly out of station on business and did not return until after she died and that there was nothing in evidence to contradict the claim of gift made in favour of the appellants.