VENKAKKA CHOUDARY Y Vs. D LAKSHMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge, Chirala (Mr.B.Eswara Reddy) in O.S.No.61 of 1971 dated 9-3-1981 are challenged in this appeal. The suit was dismissed with costs. Obviously aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellants who are the plaintiffs in the suit preferred this appeal. The respondents are the defendants. There are two plaintiffs and 26 defendants in the suit. Defendant No.l died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 2 to 26 were brought on record as the legal representatives of defendant No. 1. Convenience warrants to refer the parties as plaintiffs and defendants.

(2.) The suit was filed of recovery of possession of the suit schedule lands, for past mesne profits for a period of three years, for future mesne profits after enquiry, for costs and for such other reliefs as the Court may deem fit to grant in the nature of the case. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_877_ALT1_1996Html1.htm</FRM> All the defendants resisted the suit. Defendants 1,6 to 12,14,16 to19 filed individual written statements, where as defendants 2,3,4/5,13, and 15 filed joint written statement. Defendant No.17 adopted the written statement of defendant No.18 and defendants 13 and 15 adopted the written statement of defendant No.1. The other defendants have not filed any written statement Certain facts in the pleadings find no controversy. Plaintiff No.2 is the son of plaintiff No.1 Defendant No.l is the only son of one late Daggubati Chowdaramma (refers to a man, but not a woman). Rajamma is his sole daughter and the sister of defendant No.1. She was married to the first plaintiff in the year 1925. Chowdaramma died in or about the year 1938 and Rajamma died in October, 1968. The relationship between the family of the plaintiffs and Chowdaramma including defendant No.1 was quite cordial till some time prior to the date of the suit.

(3.) The plaintiffs alleged that the suit lands originally belonged to one Daggubati Chowdaramma the father of defendant No.l who is said to be a rich landlord owing extensive properties. Defendant No.1 has denied it to the extent that the suit lands belonged to Daggubati Chowdaramma only that it belonged to the joint family of his father Chowdaramma and himself and after his death the joint family properties devolved upon him as the sole surviving coparcener. The plaintiffs have alleged that the suit lands were given as a marriage gift to Rajamma by way of "Pasupukunkuma" by her father Chowdaramma, she being his only daughter, as is usual among the affluent Kamma families and that they were in her possession and enjoyment. It is further alleged that during the year 1953 plaintiff No.1 along with his wife Rajamma left for Madras and settled down there where he acquired extensive properties. Therefore the management of the suit lands was entrusted to defendant No.l who used to send the income to Rajamma. It appears that Rajamma felt that it would be better in the Interest of all the concerned to have a registered instrument evidencing the gift and defendant No.l executed a registered gift deed in favour of Yarlagadda Rajamma regarding the suit properties on 12-4-1957. Rajamma continued to enjoy the proceeds from the lands almost till her death. It appears that she did not bother much to know about the details of the income in view of her immense affection for her brother the 1st defendant. It appears that defendant No.l was sending the income to Rajamma through Y.Ranganayakulu who is the brother of the 1st plaintiff. It was alleged that the gift was a compIeted transaction. Defendant No.1 and other defendants who have adopted and followed him, have denied all these allegations. The custom of giving gift by way of Pasupukunkuma during the time of marriage among the affluent Kamma families and that the suit lands were given to Rajamma by way of Pasupukunkuma at the time of her marriage by Chowdaramma and that she was in possession and enjoyment of the lands and was being paid the produce from the lands in the manner stated above, are all denied. The execution of the gift deed dated 12-4-1957 by defendant No.1 in favour of Rajamma at her instance evidencing the gift in her favour is also denied. It is pointed out that when the marriage of Rajamma was performed with Plaintiff No.1, Chowdaramma presented her the family gold ornaments and jewellery and also considerable amount out of which plaintiff No.1 purchased properties in the neighbouring village Upputur in his own name. Therefore, it is contended that there was no occasion or need to gift the suit schedule lands to Rajamma by Chowdaramma towards Pasupukunkuma. It is pointed out that defendant No.1 was a minor when his father died and plaintiff No.1 being the eldest member in the family commanding very soft corner and respect from all the persons in the family including defendant No.1 and he was guiding the members of the family in all their affairs, particularly in view of his experience in litigations and business. It appears that defendant No.1 under the circumstances reposed active confidence in plaintiff No.1 and obeying all his directions and advice. Therefore, it is contended that the gift deed dated 12-4-1957 was brought about by plaintiff No.1 on the representation that the impending legislation was likely to impose ceilings on agricultural lands and consequently it would be better to create some documents to make it appear that all the properties were not being held by the same individuals, though they are to be enjoyed by them, that defendant No.1 simply believed in the representation of plaintiff No.1 and in view of the confidence he had reposed in him and as per his advice and directions, executed the gift deed. It is further pointed out that at the time of the execution of the gift deed plaintiff No.l assured defendant No.1 that the gift deed would not convey any right, title or Interest to his wife since the property belonged to the joint family of defendant No.l and his sonsand that it was only a colourable deed to screen the properties from the impending legislation and land reforms. It is further pointed out that within the short time after the gift deed was executed by defendant No.1, the 1st plaintiff also advised him to effect partition of other family properties so that they may be screened from the operation of the Ceiling Laws and in pursuance of the same, partition was effected between him and his sons - defendants 2 and 3.It is con tended that the gift deed by defendant No.1 in favour of Rajamma was not acted upon as the suit schedule lands never came into her possession, but were continued with he joint family throughout. It is contended that such a gift deed was brought about on the dominating influence of plaintiff No.1 on defendant No.1 and the members of his family. It is denied mat plaintiff No.1 and his wife shifted to Madras and settled down there and on the other hand, it is contended that plaintiff No.1 has got his properties and business interests at Karamchedu which he is managing. The recitals contained in the gift deed are said to be false and denied. It is contended that Rajamma did not acquire any right or title to the suit schedule lands by virtue of the gift deed nor came into possession of the same at any time, that she was not in possession of the same within 12 years next before the suit and even assuming that any right had accrued to her under the gift deed, it is lost due to the adverse possession of defendant No.1.