K SUSHEELAMMA Vs. Y RAMCHANDER REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kondakindi Susheelamma, the second defendant in O.S.No.121 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, at Nalgonda, preferred the present appeal. Respondents 1 and 2, Yerraballi Rama Chandra Reddy and Yerraballi Papi Reddy, as the plaintiffs, instituted O.S.No.121 of 1989 praying for the relief of partition relating to the one-fourth share in the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and the incidental reliefs. The learned Judge, after recording the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and D.Ws.1 to 7 and marking Exs.A1 to A7, Exs.B1 to B6 and Exs.X1 to X3, ultimately, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

(2.) Sri A.Pulla Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellant, the second defendant in the suit, made the following submissions:

(3.) The learned counsel pointed out that passing a preliminary decree for partition in relation to the properties covered by the registered gift deeds, Exs.B1 and B2, in the light of the facts and circumstances, cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also commented that if all the circumstances are appreciated, automatically the Court may have come to an irresistible conclusion that the gift deeds are valid and binding and hence, viewing such admissions with suspicion cannot be sustained. The counsel also pointed out that the execution of these documents had been duly proved and the mere fact that the executant was not well at the relevant point of time also had not been clearly established. The counsel would maintain that these are the registered documents. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of P.W.5, in detail, the attestor of the gift deeds, Exs.B1 and B2, and would comment that even in the light of this evidence, the stand taken by respondents 1 and 2, the plaintiffs in the suit, cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also commented that the evidence of P.W.5 as such goes unchallenged and he is a witness, who was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. The counsel also had traced the historical background of the family and the serves events, which had happened and also explained why and for what purpose this litigation, had been thought of. The learned counsel, in detail, had taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence available on record and would contend that the findings recorded by the learned Judge that the gift deeds are vitiated are totally erroneous and are unsustainable.