ERANKI SRERAMA MURTHY Vs. ERANKI ATCHUTA VENKATA SUBRAMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letters patent appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in A.S. No.2108 of 1993 dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs/appellants thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on 15.7.1983 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry in O.S. No.42 of 1974 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants.

(2.) The suit was initially instituted on 21,3.1974 by Eranki Srirama Murthy, now deceased, against his son Eranki Atchuta Venkata Subrahmanyam and four others. Defendant No.l is the second son of the plaintiff, Eranki Srirama Murthy, whereas Defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of Defendant No.1. Eranki Srirama Murthy - the plaintiff had seven sons. First son, Suryanarayana Murthy, predeceased him in 1969 leaving behind his widow, six daughters and four sons. Except his sixth son, who was living at Secunderabad and practising as an Advocate, the other sons were living at Jegurupadu. The plaintiff, his wife and the sons possessed more than 100 acres of wet land, 50 acres of dry land. In the year 1953, there was a partition in the family. The plaintiff and his sons in a family partition separated their shares. The plaintiff and his wife had been residing separately and each of the sons was living separately. Whatever share the plaintiff got in partition, he on 25.8.1973 by settlement deed Ex.B-12 settled in favour of the defendants. The settlement deed was registered on 27.8.1973. The plaintiff alleging that he had become old, having weak body and mind, the first defendant had created differences between him and his wife so that the plaintiff be deprived of assistance of his wife and thus become dependant upon one or the other sons. Slowly Defendant No.l started to take advantage of the weak mind and body of the plaintiff and on 24.8.1973 gave plaintiff to understand that he will have to execute some documents, such as Power of Attorney, etc. The plaintiff was not aware of the evil plans of Defendant No.l and did not know about the contents of the documents and was not in a position to understand implications thereof. He alleged that Defendant No.l got his signature on some documents and got the same registered. Later on, the plaintiff realized that Defendant No.1 has got settlement deed Ex.B.12 signed from him and got the same registered. On realizing that Defendant No. 1 had got the settlement deed executed by practising fraud, undue influence and coercion, the plaintiff on 12.3.1974 cancelled the same by executing document, Ex.A-7. The plaintiff also alleged that the settlement deed otherwise was null and void since it was in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972 (Act No.13 of 1972). The plaintiff, thus, prayed for a decree for declaration of cancelling the settlement deed dated 25,8.1973 that it was not a voluntary act on the part of the plaintiff but was got executed by Defendant No.1 by practising fraud or in any case to declare that the said document is null and void not creating any right, title or interest in favour of the defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property.

(3.) Defendant No.l contested the suit by filing written statement. He denied the material allegations in the plaint alleging that the plaintiff had been affectionate towards him and liked him very much. He alone had been helping the plaintiff now and then and out of love and affection only towards him, the plaintiff lived with him for a period of two years prior to middle of February, 1974. Out of his free will, love and affection, the plaintiff executed settlement deed Ex.B.12 in favour of the defendants. It was a voluntary act on the part of the plaintiff to the knowledge of other sons and members of the family. After the document was got registered, the plaintiff proclaimed about the said document both before the village elders and his associates. Defendant No.1 also openly told other brothers residing at Jegurupadu that the plaintiff executed settlement deed in favour of defendants. This caused jealousy in the mind of the other sons and they hatched a plan to win over the plaintiff and created dissatisfaction between the plaintiff and Defendant No.l. Defendant No.l thus denied allegations of practice of fraud and misrepresentation in getting the settlement deed executed saying that the plaintiff was in sound state of mind. He was taken away from his house whereafter the plaintiff was influenced by the other sons and was forced to file the suit after the other sons got the cancellation deed executed on 12.3.1974. Thus, it was prayed that the suit based upon false allegations be dismissed.