MUDDANA RANGA RAO Vs. TIRUMAREDDY VARAHALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant in this appeal.

(2.) The facts concerning the appeal may be briefly stated; The respondent executed a settlement deed on 23-2-1961 under which she conveyed lands specifically mentioned in plaint 'A' Schedule in favour of her brother, the appellant, on condition that, out of the income arising from the properties, the appellant shall maintain the respondent and her mother during their life time. In the settlement deed, the respondent mentioned that the appellant, her brother, had been looking after her affairs and assisting her in every if possible manner and that, in the hope expectation that the appellant would continue to look after the respondent and her mother during their life time and reposing confidence in the appellant to that effect, the properties mentioned in schedule A to the plaint were conveyed to the appellant. As already stated, the settlement deed specifically refers to the obligation imposed by the respondent that the settlement of the properties is made with the specific condition that out of the income from the properties, the respondent and her mother would be maintained by the appellant. The appellant accepted the conditions imposed in the bettlemem deed and took possesion of the properties. It may be mentioned that the settlement deed is duly registerered on 28-3 1961 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhaemunipatnam. The respondent claimed that, after taking possession oi the properties, the appellant neglected to provide for the maintenance of herseif and her mother. It is her claim that, on account of the continued neglect in discharging the obligations imposed under the settlement deed by the appellant the respondent required the appellant to give her back the property settled on him under the above referred settlement deed. The disputes were placed befoie elders in the Panchayat and it was contended that the appellant agreed to provide for the maintenance of the respondent and her mother or in the alternative, the appellant would convey 25 cents of wet land in two plots to the respondent and her mother. It is alleged that the appellant failed to discharge even this commitment made by him. The respondent, thereupon filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Bheemunipatnam, in O.S. No. 213 of 1974 for delivery of possession of the property conveyed to the appellant under the above referred settlement or in the alternative, prayed for a direction that the appellant should pay a sum of Rs. 300/-per annum towards maintained of her mother. The respondent claimed arrears of maintenance commencing from the period 23-6-1963 to 23-6-1971.

(3.) The appellant-defendant did not dispute the averments contained in the plaint. He expressly accepted the fact that the property conveyed to him under the settlement deed was burdened with the obligation of providing for the maintenance of the respondent and her mother, but that he was not in a position to fulfil the commitment made by him, because the lands did not yield any income on account of drought year after year and the income was not sufficient to maintain the respondent and her mother. In any event, the appellant resisted the claim for payment beyond a period of three years in view of the limitation provided under Articles 104 and 105 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963. The trial court accepted the contentions urged by the respondent plaintiff and decreed the suit by granting past maintenance at the rate of Rs 150/- per annum to the respondent for the period from 23 6-1963 to 23 6 1971 and future maintenance at the same rate of Rs. 15C/- per annum with a charge on the plaint 'A' schedule propeities.