M PADMAVATHI Vs. SIDDAHAMSETTY RAJESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal would herein after be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

(2.) Plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant First defendant and his brother S. Madhava Rao were members of a Hindu joint family In the partition that was effected between them in 1937. Mulgi bearing No 3903. Market Street Secunderabad and house bearing No.2154 at Hill Stieet, Secunderabad were allotted to the share of S. Madhava Rao along with some other properties. Mulgi bearing No.3904 and other properties were allotted to the share of first defendant S Madhava Rao, out of love and affection towards the plaintiff, gifted the Mulgi bearing No 3903 and house bearing No 2154 to the plaintiff through a registered gift deed, when she was aged 5 years and they gift was accepted by the first defendant on her behalf as her guaidian. But plaintiff was not aware of the said gift till 1976. The Secunderabad Contonment Town Improvement Trust while demolishing old Mulgies for road widening, also had demolished Mulgies bearing Nos. 3903 and 3904 and gave plots No. 3 and 4 in lieu thereof on lease for construction of new buildings therein. With an intention to remodel her house, plaintiff made an application for loan to the Bank, when the Bank insisted on production of her title deed, she obtained a copy of the gift deed executed by her uncle Madhava Rao in her favour and then only she came to know about the mulgi bearing No. 3903 also being gifted to her along with the house, and the enquiries got made by her revealed that first defendant had obtained lease of plots 3 and 4 in his own name and made constructions in those plots as if they were his own plots, and had gifted the building constructed therein to the second defendant, who is his second wife , who in turn had sold flats to defendants 3 and 4. Since first defendant played fraud on her and had not given her possession of the plaint schedule property, which was allotted in lieu of the mulgi No. 3903 gifted to her by her paternal uncle, she filed the suit for declaration of her title to the said property and recovery of possession thereof from the defendants.

(3.) The case in brief of the first defendant is, in the partition between him and his brother Madhava Rao under the partition deed dated 08-02-1937 house bearing No. 2154, Hill Street, Secunderabad and Mulgi bearing No. 3903 of Market Street were allotted to his brother and Mulgi bearing No. 3904, Market Street, Secunderabad was allotted to his share. As the Secunderabad Contonment Town Improvement Trust wanted to develop market area, it acquired the Mulgies bearing Nos. 3903 and 3904 in 1938, but did not pay any compensation. After the marriage of the plaintiff he gave Rs. 4,700/- to her husband on 04-04-1947 and obtained a receipt towards the value of the Mulgi No.3903 By the time of gift House No.2154 Hill Street, Secundarabad was in the occupation of his mother and Ins brother Madhava Rao. Subsequently, plaintiff obtained possession of the said house and got her name mutated in the municipal registers. The original gift deed was handed over to the plaintiff long time back. So, her contention that she is not aware of the existence of the gift deed till 1976 is not true. Me took on lease plots 3 and 4 and constructed building thereon with his own monies Thereafter, it was partitioned between him and his sons under a registered partition deed. Later he gifted the property to his wife (second defendant) on 25-06-1958 and she obtained a transfer of the lease of the land in her favour, and sold the said propeity to defendants 3 and 4 under registered sale deed dated 12-06-1969 and there after they obtained transfer of the lease hold rights in their favour from the Estate Officer. For the above reasons and as the suit is barred by limitation plaintiff is not entitled to any lelief