LAWS(APH)-1966-12-34

PENUMALLI RAMANA REDDI Vs. KANUMURU RUKMINIAMMA

Decided On December 21, 1966
Penumalli Ramana Reddi Appellant
V/S
Kanumuru Rukminiamma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree in O.S. Nos. 40 of 1960 and 12 of 1961 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore. The facts leading to these appeals may shortly be stated.

(2.) The defendant in both the suits, one Penumalli Ramanareddi, is a resident of North Mopur, in Nellore District, owning cultivable lands and other properties, and also having business in mica. He has two sons, Gopal Reddy and Krishna Reddy. The plaintiff in both the suits, Kanumuru Rukminiamma, is a wealthy widow, having extensive landed property. She has two daughters, the elder of whom was given in marriage to the son of Allur Venkatanarayana Reddi, her paternal uncle. Her second daughter, Bajjamma, was given in marriage to the defendant's son, Gopal Reddy in 1956. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant represented to her in July, 1957, that he was in urgent need of Rs. 20,000 for securing lease of mica mines of the Rajah of Venkatagiri, and requested the plaintiff to lend the amount. On account of the relationship, and the pressing importunities, the plaintiff lent Rs. 15,000 on 11th July, 1957 at Nellore, and obtained from the defendant a promissory note, Exhibit A-2 of the same date. As the defendant pressed for the balance of Rs. 5,000, the plaintiff lent that amount at Potlapudi, on 2nd August, 1957, and obtained from the defendant a letter, Exhibit A-1, of even date. Notwithstanding several demands the defendant committed default in repayment of the amounts, and hence O.S. No. 40 of 1960 was filed on the foot of the letter, Exhibit A-1, and O.S. No. 12 of 1961 on the foot of the promissory note, Exhibit A-2. It was averred in the plaint that the defendant was not entitled to the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, as he was an Income-tax assessee during the relevant period.

(3.) Both the suit were resisted on substantially the same grounds. The defendant averred that in 1957 he anticipated trouble from the Income-tax authorities in respect of this assessment for the year 1954-55, as he was charged with suppression of income and falsification of accounts, and was assessed to tax for that year in a sum of Rs. 87,000 and feared the levy of penalty of one and a half times the tax. He approached the plaintiff's brother, Allur Seshadri Reddi, P.W. 1 said to be very well experienced in litigation and Court affairs, and he and the plaintiff advised the defendant to shield his properties by placing them beyond the reach of the Income-tax Department, by executing a nominal mortgage deed in respect of his wet and dry lands, and some promissory notes nominally in favour of the plaintiff, and also to execute a nominal sale-deed in respect of his (defendant's, house and some promissory notes nominally in favour of his daughter-in-law, Bujjamma. The defendant, being inexperienced in Court affairs and a gullible son of person, believed those representations, and executed a registered sale-deed in respect of this house, and some promissory notes in favour of Bujjamma. He also executed a mortgage deed in respect of his dry and wet lands, Exhibit B-2, dated 5th September, 1957 for Rs. 34,000 and Exhibits A-1 and A-2, in favour of the plaintiff. All those documents were nominal and devoid of consideration. The promissory note and the letter, Exhibits A-2 and A-1, respectively were executed on 17th November, 1957 along with the sale deed, Exhibit B-3, but Exhibits A-2 and A-1 were antedated in order to make them appear as independent transactions. Attestations were not taken on Exhibits A-2 and A-1, intending to take them if and when a necessity arose to make use of those documents. The plaintiff got the attestation on Exhibit A-2 subsequently made for the purpose of the suit, and it constitutes a material alteration. Exhibits B-3, A-2 and A-1, were entrusted to the plaintiff for custody with the aforesaid object. Having regard to the close relationship and confidence in her the sale-deed and the promissory notes in favour of Bujjamma were also subsequently entrusted to the plaintiff and P.W. 1. Since the anticipated trouble from the Income-tax Department had disappeared, the defendant requested the plaintiff and Bujjamma orally and also by means of registered notices, Exhibits B-4 and B-5, dated 12th September, 1958, and Exhibits B-6 and B-7 dated 28th September, 1958 and 27th December, 1958, respectively, to return the documents. But those notices were returned unserved. Meanwhile differences arose between the defendant's sons, Gopal Reddy and Krishna Reddy, in connection with their partnership business for producing pictures, which resulted in Krishna Reddy filing a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts. In order to brings pressure on the defendant to settle those differences, the plaintiff and P.W. 1 conceived the evil idea of suing on Exhibits A-2 and A-1. Bujjamma executed a relinquishment deed on 24th December, 1958, giving up her rights under the sale deed executed by the defendant in her favour. The defendant, is not liable as Exhibits A-2 and A-1 are nominal and sham transactions, not supported by any consideration. The defendant was not an income-tax assessee during the relevant period, and is entitled to the benefits of Madras Act IV of 1938.