KORITALA HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. DHULIPALLA VENKANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that requires determination in this second appeal is whether the suit filed by the respondent herein is barred by limitation. The facts necessary to appreciate the arguments may briefly be stated. The respondent herein D. Venkanna brought a suit O.S. No. 335 of 1956 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Bapatla for a declaration of the settlement deed dated 21st November, 1940 executed by him in favour of the defendant, a minor represented by his father as guardian as sham and nominal transaction. That was executed to avoid maintenance claimed by his first wife. It was stated that the plaintiff's wife one Rattamma had deserted him while he was ill in 1940, and was contemplating to bring a suit for maintenance. The plaintiff was residing with the father of the defendant along with his mother, and as a result of living together developed a sort of confidence in the father of the defendant and was taking his advice in all matters from time to time. On the advice of the father of the defendant to safeguard his property from the clutches of his wife, and to defeat her claim, the plaintiff executed a settlement deed in favour of the defandant who was then a minor on 21st November, 1940. According to the settlement deed, he was to continue in possession and reserved his life interests in the property and vested the remainder in favour of the minor. It was claimed that by virtue of the said deed, the defendant did not acquire any right over the property. The nominal character of the settlement deed was also declared in O.S. No. 206 of 1941 which was brought by the first wife of the plaintiff, Rattamma against the plaintiff and the defendant But of late, the defendant, after attaining majority, has been proclaiming in the village that by virtue of the settlement deed, he had interest in the property, and was trying to create a cloud over the title of the plaintiff. He, therefore, issued a notice to the defendant, but the defendant did not reply to it. Therefore, the plaintiff was obliged to file the suit for declaration.

(2.) Initially, the suit was for the cancellation of the document (settlement deed), but later, as a result of an amendment ordered by the Court, the suit was so framed as to be for declaration that the settlement deed was sham and nominal and for direction that the defendant be directed to execute a document accepting the settlement deed to be sham and nominal.

(3.) The defendant (appellant) contended that the plaintiff had developed special love and affection towards him, and voluntarily executed a settlement deed on 21st November, 1940 in his favour. According to him, it was not a sham and nominal document not intended to be operative. It was also pleaded that the findings given in O.S. No. 206 of 1941 were not binding, and lastly that the suit was barred by limitation having been brought 16 years after the execution of the document. The first Court framed six issues covering the entire pleadings, and proceeded with the trial of the suit. It examined three witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and six on the side of the defendant besides marking numerous documents on either side. The main issue in the lower Court was whether the settlement deed dated 21st November, 1940 is not valid, true and binding on the plaintiff, and whether the suit brought was in time. On the second issue, the lower Court held that