KOVVURI CHINA VENKATA REDDY Vs. KOVVURI GANOHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the first defendant in O.S. 126/70 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tanuku. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint A & B schedule properties and directed an enquiry into the past and future mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to the suit may briefly be stated : - The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are the sons of the first defendant. The 3rd defendant is the first defendant's daughter. Defendant 4 to 7 are the daughters of 3rd defendant, The 8th defendant is the son of 3rd defendant. Defendants 9 to 13 are the tenants of the suit lands. It is the plaintiff's case that the suit properties were the absolute properties of Paddamma who is his mother. She was enjoying them with absolute rights during her life-time. Paddamma died on 25-12-1958 intestate. On her death the suit properties devolved on the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 in equal shares. After the death of Paddamma, the suit properties were being managed by the first defendant. Asserting exclusive rights in himself in the suit properties the first defendant had executed settlement deeds in favour of defendants 3 to 8. They are void and inoperative and do not bind the heirs of Paddamma. During her life-time Paddamma had executed a registered settlement deed Ex. B-94 dated 8-5-1955 in favour of the 4th defendant which alienation the plaintiff did not question. The settlement deeds in respect of the suit properties by the first defendant, however, in favour of the other defendants do not bind the plaintiff.

(3.) The first defendant in his written statement denied that the suit properties were the absolute properties of Paddamma or that she had in possession and enjoyment as consequence of her exclusive ownership. He contended that the entire sale consideration for the sale deeds in respect of the suit properties in the name of Paddamma proceeded from him and Paddamma was only a benami- dar for him. He contended that these properties were acquired benami in the name of his wife Paddamma only for his benefit. He also urged that under an unregistered partition deed dated 29-3-1945 the joint family properties were divided into four shares. Two shares were taken by the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant who are his sons. The other two shares were taken by the first defendant and his minor son Bhaskara Rao who subsequently died intestate leaving the first defendant as the sole heir to his share of the joint family properties, It was stated that the first defendant had left for Rangoon and was there till the outbreak of the Second World War in April 1942 when he returned to his native village. After the 2nd world war was over, he had left for Rangoon in February, 1946. His business in Rangoon flourished. He made good money in Rangoon and had returned to his village in April, 1958 He was sending from Rangoon sizable sums of money to his co-son-in-law Mallidi Satyam and asked him to purchase properties for his benefit. These purchases were all made benami in the name of his wife Paddamma. The reasons for the purchases in the name of his wife were stated in the written statement as follows:-Hc had a concubine Nookamma (she was living with him in Rangoon . She claimed a share in the properties acquired in his own name and he apprehended some troubles from the concubine and her sons in case the properties were acquired in his name. There was also the fear of incurring loss in the business and he apprehended trouble from the financiers of his Company. He. there, felt it safer to obtain sale deeds in the name of wife benami for him. Malladi Satyam was accordingly instructed and the sale deeds were taken in the name of his wife Paddamma. The entire consi deration for the purchase and acquisition of the plaint 'A' and 'B, schedule properties was provided by the first defendant. Paddamma had executed the settlement deed Ex. B-94 dated 8-5-1955 in favour of the 4th defendant at his instance and under his instructions and directions. He had assumed management of the suit properties immediately after he came to India in April, 1958. Paddamma had handed over all the title deeds when he reached hi" native village in April, 1958. The settlement deeds executed by him are all valid, the properties being his exclusive and selfacquired properties.