KUSAM SATYANARAYANA REDDY Vs. KUSUM SAMBRAJYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First appeal has been filed by defendants 1 to 4 against the judgment and decree dt. 27-1-1987 passed by Sub-ordinate Judge, Guntur in O.S.No. 316 of 1979. Cross-objections have been filed by the plaintiffs. Both the cases are being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs laid the suit for a declaration that the gift deed dt. 6-11-1979 which was registered on 12-11-1979 purported to have been executed by late Punna Reddy in favour of defendants 2 and 3 was illegal and void. They also sought a declaration that they were in possession of the suit property. Alternatively they prayed that if the Court did not find them in possession of the property, they should be given possession of the suit property which was gifted out and is mentioned in items 1 and 2 of plaint B schedule properties and item No. 2 of plaint C schedule property. The plaintiffs also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties.

(3.) The contentions raised by the plaintiffs were that the suit schedule properties were owned by one Bhimavarapu Punnareddy who was the husband of 1st plaintiff and father of 2nd plaintiff, 4th defendant and late Lakshamma, who was the wife of 3rd plaintiff and mother of plaintiffs 4 to 7. Late Punna Reddy had no male issue, he had only three daughters i.e., 2nd plaintiff, 4th defendant and wife of 3rd plaintiff. Late Punna Reddy celebrated the marriages of his daughters. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of defendants 1 and 4. Defendants 5 to 7 are the grand sons of late Punnareddy's brother. Punna Reddy was suffering from mouth cancer for about a year before his death. He lived in his own house along with 1st plaintiff. 1st defendant who is the husband of 4th defendant was asking Punna Reddy to give him some property. Punna Reddy conveyed an extent of Ac. 2.55 cents under a registered gift deed reserving life interest in Ac. 0.74 cents to himself and to the 1st plaintiff who died subsequently. Punna Reddy also gifted a portion of the house to the defendants 2 to 4 under a registered gift deed dt. 10-2-1975 reserving life interest to himself and to his wife. While Punna Reddy was undergoing treatment for mouth cancer, doctors finally advised that he could not be cured, therefore he was brought to Nambur. He became weak and his voice was feeble. While he was well, Punna Ready had executed a registered will leed dt. 29-10-1979 bequeathing all his remaining properties. This Will was his last Will. He reserved life interest in plaint A, B and C schedule properties to himself and to his wife-1st plaintiff. The vested remainder in plaint A schedule property was bequeathed to his brother's grand sons viz., defendants 5 to 7 who had to perform his obsequies being sapindas. The vested remainder in plaint B schedule property was bequeathed to 2nd plaintiff with absolute rights. The vested remainder in plaint B schedule property was bequeathed to plaintiffs 4 to 7. The 1st plaintiff had executed a registered gift deed in respect of Ac. 0.77 cents of land reserving life interest to herself with vested remainder to the defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 looked after the welfare of Punna Reddy while he was seriously ill. Punna Reddy lived in his house along with his wife 1st plaintiff. Punna Reddy lost his power of speech and also normal mental condition and consciousness even by 2/3-11-1979. Defendants 1 and 4 after coming to know about the execution of the Will in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and in favour of plaintiffs 4 to 7 took away Punna Reddy on 5-11 -1979 in two taxies. They also threatened Punna Reddy with dire consequences. The 1st plaintiff reported the police on 5-11-1979. She also sent applications to the Superintendent of Police and others on 14-11-1979. On 15-11-1979 the defendants 1 and 2 brought the dead body of Punna Reddy to the village. The 1st plaintiff gave a report to the police. The police seized the dead body and conducted post mortem examination in pursuance of the report dt. 6-11-1979. Obsequies of late Punna Reddy were celebrated by 5th defendant. Punna Reddy had no capacity to execute any Will after execution of Will dt. 29-10-1979 which was in favour of plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 to 7. He could not have executed any document in favour of defendants 1 to 4. The 1st plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the properties. After the death of Punna Reddy defendants 1 and 4 were trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit properties. The plaintiffs filed a suit being O.S.No. 2045 of 1979 for permanent injunction. The Court granted temporary injunction. The defendants did not receive notices and summons ordered in the suit, but filed a suit being O.S.No. 2078 of 1979 for permanent injunction respect of items 1 and 2 of plaint B schedule properties and item No. 2 of plaint C schedule properties. Subsequently the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants brought into existence a registered gift deed alleged to have been executed by late Punna Reddy in respect of items 1 and 2 of plaint B schedule properties and item No. 2 of plaint C schedule property as if they were conveyed to defendants 2 and 3 after the life time of Punna Reddy. The said gift deed was antedated as if it was executed by Puna Reddy on 6-11 -1979 and the same was stage managed. In the meantime the 1st plaintiff also died on 13-8-1983. 2nd plaintiff filed a memo stating that the 1 st plaintiff executed a registered will before her death on 26-4-1982. As per the terms of the Will the 2nd plaintiff became entitled to her estate.