M SEETHARAMAMMA Vs. T PEDA KONDAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two letters patentappeals are from thecommonjudgmentofalearned single Judge in A.S. Nos.458 and 460 of 1979 which arose out of two suits O.S.Nos.16 of 1977 and 48 of 1977 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry.

(2.) Originally, O.S.No.16 of 1977 was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry as O.S.No.44 of 1975 and subsequently, on transfer to the court of the II Additional District Judge, it was re-numbered as O.S.No.16 of 1977. That suit was instituted by Makala Seetharamamma and her two daughters and two sons for declaration of title to the plaint schedule lands comprising five items aggregating Ac.9-41 cents and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their representatives from interfering with the plaintiffs' possessionand enjoyment. The first plaintiff was the widow of one Pulleswara Rao, son of the first defendant-Rathamma, wife of late Sanyasi who died on 18-12-1957. Pulleswara Rao, the husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 5, died on 22-7-1968.

(3.) Late Sanyasi, the husband of the first defendant and father-in-law of the first plaintiff, was a businessman: he carried on money-lending business and also acquired agricultural lands. He and his son, Pulleswara Rao, the husband of the first plaintiff, were members of joint family. Rudru Suryanarayana, the father of the firstplaintiff, borrowed certainamountsfromSanyasi by executing promissory notes and after thedeathof Sanyasi, it was ascertained that the total amount of indebtedness was to the tune of Rs.11,818/-, but Pulleswara Rao agreed to take only Rs.9,000/- from Rudru Suryanarayana. It was the case of the plaintiffs that Rudru Suryanarayana and his son-in-law, Pulleswara Rao had some disputes, as a result of which, the first plaintiff had to stay in her parents' house. Rudru Suryanarayana, in full satisfaction of the entire debt due from him to Sanyasi, sold items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule to late Pulleswara Rao for Rs.9,000/-. But the sale deed, Ex.A-1 dated 22-6-1960, was executed in favour of the first defendant, benami, for the benefit of Pulleswara Rao. Under Ex .A-5,item4 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by Pulleswara Rao in 1962 from one Nettala Krishna M urthy (brother of D.W.3) for a consideration of Rs.3,000/- and he obtained the registered sale deed dated 12-4-1962 in the name of his mother, the first defendant, benami, for his benefit. Out of the sale consideration of Rs.3,000/-, Pulleswara Rao discharged the vendor's debt of Rs.l,5(X)/- due to the Fruit Growers' Co-op. Society of Rajahmundry and paid the balance of Rs.1,410/- to the vendor before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration. Item 5 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by Pulleswara Rao for Rs.3,000/- from one Mamilla Sastry (D.W.2) and obtained a sale deed dated 20th April, 1963 in favour of his mother, the first defendant, benami, for his benefit. In respect of this transaction, Pulleswara Rao discharged the promissory note debts due from the vendor to the tune of Rs.2,554/- as recited in the sale deed and paid the balance of Rs.446/- to the vendor before the Sub- Registrar. All the three sale deeds were thus got executed by Pulleswara Rao in favour of the first defendant, benami, for his benefit. The plaintiffs also asserted mat the first defendant, Rathamma, had no property or money of her own and she had no capacity to purchase the plaint schedule properties. The entire sale consideration came from late Pulleswara Rao, although the sale deeds were obtained in the name of the first defendant During his life time, Pulleswara Rao was in possession of these lands, cultivated the same and paid taxes. The title vested inhimand the possession was with him. Neither the first defendant had ti tie to these lands nor was she in possession at any time. On the death of Pulleswara Rao, the first plaintiff came into possession of the properties, cultivated the same in her own right and on behalf of the other plaintiffs and for over a period of 12 years, the plaintiffs and their predecessor in title, late Pulleswara Rao, were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties adverse to the claim and title of the first defendant. The plaintiffs also alleged that on the evil advice of the village Karanam of Undeswarapuram-oneMr.Kuchumanchi Iyyaparaju, D.W.5-the first defendant executed a registered settlement deed Ex.B-6 dated 14-3-1975 in favour of the second defendant, who is her distant relation (daughter of first defendant's sister). Subsequent to the filing of the suit, items 4 and 5 were sold by the first defendant in favour of the 6th defendant, the wife of lyyaparaju, (D.W.5) under a registered sale deed Ex.B-5 dt.30-6-1975 for a consideration of Rs.10,000/-, The plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint questioning the validity of Ex.B-5 dated 3-6-1975 alleging that there was no consideration for the said document and it was the result of manipulation by lyyapuraju, the Village Munsif (husband of D.6). The trial court allowed that application as the transaction had taken place subsequent to the filing of the suit.