GRANDHI PADMANABHAM Vs. NAGULAKONDA VENKATA MADHUSUDHANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing A.S. No.1487 of 1980 and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Vizianagaram in O.S. No.6 of 1973.

(2.) The plaintiff and defendant No.3 are sons of the second defendant. The father and sons effected partition of the joint family properties under registered partition deed dated 28-12-1958. Defendant No.2 got plaint schedule house along with other properties towards his share. He executed a registered gift deed on 15-9-1966 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.3. The suithouse and other properties were gifted in favour of the plaintiff and some other properties were gifted in favour of defendant No.3. Possession of the gifted properties was also delivered to the donees and the gift was acted upon. The plaintiff executed an agreement on 15-9-1966 to pay Rs.200/- per month towards maintenance to the second defendant and similarly defendant No.3 also execu ted an agreement to pay Rs. 100/- per month towards maintenance to the defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 revoked the gift deed (Ex.A-2) by a registered recovation deed dated 8-5-1967 as the plaintiff and defendant No.3 did not keep up their promises. Subsequently, defendant No.2 sold the suit house to defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 22-12-1970. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.8 of 1973 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Vizianagarm against defendant No.2 and others regarding some other properties. In that suit, the Subordinate Judge held the gift deed (Ex.A-2) to be true and valid and the revocation deed to be not valid. The plaintiff filed O.S. No.6 of 1973 for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit house and that the sale deed execu ted by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is not valid and binding on him, for recovery of possession and for recovery of damages and future mesne profits. Defendant No.2 filed written statement contending that there was no complete gift as it was not acted upon and that he validly revoked the gift deed as the plaintiff and defendant No.3 did not pay maintenance amount. Defendant No.l. filed written statement with similar contentions. Defendant No.2 died during the pendency of the suit and the second son was brought on record as defendant: No.3 who filed written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff.

(3.) The trial Court framed appropriate issues. After considering the entire material evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff preferred A.S. No.1487 of 1980 in this Court and the learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Against the judgment of the learned single Judge, the Letters Patent Appeal is filed.