SANKU VEERAIAH Vs. SANKU VEERANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two second appeals are preferred by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 challenging the decrees and common judgment dated 19.4.2004 in AS Nos. 46 and 47 of 2000 on the file of First Additional District Judge Court, West Godavari District, Eluru, confirming the decrees and common judgment dated 11.10.1999 in OS Nos. 28 of 1993 and 32 of 1994 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem, respectively. The parties herein are closely related. Krishna Murthy and Veeranna, who are father and son, are plaintiffs in the two suits. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are common in both the suits. Krishna Murthy, Smt. Nara Subbayamma, and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are children of the first defendant. Subbayamma is shown as fourth defendant in OS No. 28 of 1993 and fifth defendant in OS No. 32 of 1994. For the sake of convenience, they are hereinafter referred to as such.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the first defendant and his children have partitioned their properties in the year 1968 in the presence of village elders. Ever since, they have been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. First defendant has got Acs. 3.18 cents of Zeroyathi wetland in Survey No. 147/1 situated at Bhuvana Palli Village. The plaintiffs jointly took the said land on lease from first defendant on a condition to pay maktha of 30 bags per year to the entire extent. First defendant used to do money-lending business and after death of first defendant's wife, Veeranna (grandson of first defendant) has been looking after the welfare of first defendant. The first defendant in token of services of Veeranna executed registered gift/settlement deed dated 3.2.1993 bequeathing the land admeasuring Ac. 0.80 cents in Survey No. 147/1 in his favour. On the other hand, the first defendant has, for the purpose of medical expenses, to discharge his debts and to go to pilgrims, sold the land admeasuring Acs. 2.38 cents in Survey No. 147/1 to Krishna Murthy for a consideration of Rs. 57,300/- and executed registered sale deed dated 3.2.1993 in his favour. There were disputes between Krishna Murthy and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as to the partition of house and landed properties. Keeping the same in mind, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 instigated first defendant, who in turn executed registered cancellation deeds dated 11.3.1993 and 30.3.1993 cancelling the registered settlement deed and registered sale deed executed in favour of Veeranna and Krishna Murthy. Cancellation of a document is unknown to law and it is non est in the eye of law. Hence the suits are filed for declaration of title to the respective properties and consequential permanent injunction.

(3.) The first defendant filed written statement in both the suits inter alia contending that first defendant did not lease his land to plaintiffs at any time; he did not incur any debts; he had never incurred medical expenses and never intended to make any pilgrimage. He never offered to sell his land for Rs. 57,300/- and in fact the value of land was Rs. 1,95,000/- per acre. Krishna Murthy, Vishnumurthy and Anubolu Subbarao represented to first defendant that for obtaining loan in a Bank, he had to execute a bond in favour of Bank. Believing the same, first defendant went to Sub-Registrar's Office along with the above three persons, in the absence of third defendant, and signed on two sets of written documents. The contents of the documents were not read over and explained to first defendant. The sale deed is not supported by consideration. The settlement deed was also not accepted. On verification of documents, third defendant informed to first defendant that plaintiffs have obtained sale deed and gift deed in their favour. Because of fraud and misrepresentation, those documents were brought into existence by plaintiffs. On coming to know the fraud played by plaintiffs, first defendant executed cancellation deeds. First defendant was not influenced by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for cancellation of sale deed and settlement deed. The plaintiffs are not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the suits. Hence the suits are liable to be dismissed. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed memo adopting the written statement of first defendant.