KAVITHA GOUD Vs. NOOKALA SUDARSHAN REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Quondam minor plaintiff in O.S.No.924 of 924 of 1984 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is the appellant. The suit was filed on her behalf by her father and guardian, inter alia, for the relief of possession of the paint schedule property, which is a house bearing No.3-4-495/1 at Barkatpura, Hyderabad in approximately 1,147 Sq.Yds., within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule appended to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the suit property ), which earlier was a part of the house bearing No.3-4-495, after ejecting the respondents there from and for past and future mesne profits. For the sake of convenience the parties would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff, in brief, in the amended plaint is, second defendant is the son of the first defendant, who is the son of the third defendant. Fourth defendant is a tenant in respect of a part of the suit property. Third defendant, who was the absolute owner of the suit property, being his self-acquired property, while undergoing treatment as an in-patient in the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, sold it to her under a registered sale deed dated 26.05.1984 and authorized her to take possession thereof from defendants 1, 2 and 4. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 failed to deliver possession of the property to her in spite of a lawyer s notice, on the ground that it was allotted to the share of first defendant in an oral partition between him and the third defendant, which is not true. Hence the suit.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 filed a common written statement inter alia contending that the sale deed dated 26.05.1985, relied on by the plaintiff, was not executed by the third defendant out of his free will and consent, and was brought into existence by one Padmavathi and her daughter Anantlaxmi alias Sridevi, who have physical and mental control over the third defendant. The suit property, whose value, as on the date of the alleged sale, was about Rs.15 lakhs, could not have been sold for a paltry amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs. First defendant and his children have been residing in the suit property, which was allotted to his share in the oral partition between him and the third defendants in 1954, in his own right, though prior to 1954 first and third defendants resided therein as members of a joint family. Earlier in 1948, though there was a partition between first and third defendants relating to ancestral properties received by third defendant from his father Laxma Reddy, there was no division in status between them, and so they continued to live jointly as joint family members with third defendant as Karta, and carried on business. With the joint family income, third defendant purchased the house bearing No.3-4-495 in 1950 jointly with Rapaka Narsimha Reddy (father-in-law of first defendant), M. Pratap Reddy and his mother. M. Devrani. Prior to his death in 1953, since the suit property was agreed to be allotted to the share of first defendant Repaka Narsimha Reddy promised to transfer his share in the suit property to the first defendant so that first defendant would be benefited. Consideration for sale of his 1/4th share was paid to Repaka Narasimha Reddy from out of the joint family funds, but in as much as the third defendant was the Kartha of the joint family, the release/sale deed in respect of the share of Narasimha Reddy, was executed by Surya Prakash Reddy in the name of the third defendant. In an oral partition that took place in 1954, the suit property was allotted to the share of first defendant and the same was confirmed in a memorandum dated 27.05.1975 and so third defendant got the suit property mutated the name of first defendant in the registers of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. In any event, since they acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession due to their long standing possession, plaintiff is not entitled any relief.