IPPARAPALLI BHOODEVAMMA Vs. IPPARAPALLI SUBBARAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 11 of 1957 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Nellore, is the appellant. She laid the suit for a declaration that the settlement deed dated 19th July, 1948, executed by her in favour of her husband and his brothers, defendants 1 to 4 was a nominal one or in the alternative to direct defendants 1 to 4 to reconvey the plaint schedule property to her under an agreement dated 25th July, 1948. The suit has been dismissed and hence the appeal.

(2.) The 1st defendant is the plaintiff's husband. Defendants 2 to 4 are her husband's brothers. Defendants 5, 6 and 7 are the alienees. The case of the plaintiff is briefly this; The plaint schedule property is a terraced house of about 20 ankanams and 45 ankanams of vacant site attached to the house in ' sale ' street, Nellore town. The plaintiff's mother-in-law, Ethirajamma, purchased vacant site of an extent of 80 ankanams on 25th July, 1934, for Rs. 240 with her stridhana funds and built a tiled house on the said site at a cost of about Rs. 2,000. The house was registered in her own name in the Municipality and she was in possession and enjoyment thereof. Ethirajamma died on 28th December, 1941. Before her death, she executed a will in favour of the plaintiff bequeathing the house to her.

(3.) The plaintiff thereafter got the tiled house converted into a terraced house with her stridhana funds and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Defendants 1 to 4, who were joint, were residing in the suit house with the permission of the plaintiff. While so, defendants 3 and 4 and one of their sisters were unmarried and they could not get proper alliances as they had no property of their own. Then at the suggestion of defendants 1 to 4, the plaintiff executed a nominal settlement deed on 19th July, 1948 (Exhibit A-66) in respect of the house to enable them to get proper marriage alliances. It was the understanding that after they got married, they Would reconvey the property to her. In spite of the settlement deed, the house continued to be in the possession of the plaintiff and she was herself paying the municipal taxes and also letting out the house on rent. Defendants 1 to 4 also executed an agreement to reconvey on 25th June, 1948, Exhibit A-67. While so, the plaintiff came to know on or about 25th October, 1954, that defendants 1 to 4 had fraudulently mortgaged the property to defendants 5 to 7, and that the mortgages were not supported by consideration and were executed with an ulterior motive by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of defendants 5 to 7. The plaintiff was therefore constrained to file the suit for the reliefs prayed for. The suit was filed as pauper.