LAWS(APH)-1996-2-40

E V RAMANAMMA Vs. E A V SUBRAMANYAM

Decided On February 06, 1996
ERANKI VENKATA RAMANAMMA Appellant
V/S
ERANKI ATCHUTA VENKATA SUBRAMANYAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.42 of 1974 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry preferred this appeal against the decree and judgment dated 15-7-1983 dismissing the suit.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as under: Originally Eranki Sreeramamurthy (the deceased first plaintiff) filed the suit against his second son the first defendant and his grand-sons defendants 2 to 5 with the following averments. The first plaintiff belongs to Jegurupadu village. The first plaintiff and his sons possessed of Acs. 100-00 of wet land and Acs.50-00 of dry land. In order to -discharge the joint family debts, some of the properties were sold. In 1953 the remaining properties were partitioned between the first plaintiff and his sons. Since then the first plaintiff and his sons were in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. Ever since the partition, the first defendant is constantly requesting the first plaintiff to give a share to him in the personal property of the first plaintiff, which he got from his mother, to which the first plaintiff did not agree. The first defendant created differences between the first plaintiff and his wife, the result of which is that the wife left the first plaintiff in his old age of 82 years. The first plaintiff has become weak both in body and mind. Therefore the first plaintiff had to depend on one of his sons. The first defendant represented to the first plaintiff that in his (the first plaintiffs) interest, it is better to execute some documents such as General Power of Attorney, etc. The first defendant took the signatures of the first plaintiff on some documents and also on some blank papers. The first plaintiff was not in a position to understand what those documents are. Later on the first plaintiff came to know that the first defendant got a settlement deed dated 25-8-1973 (Ex. A-8 or B-12) registered, which was signed by the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff also came to know that his signatures were taken on some false declarations to the extent of his lands and the same were filed to get over the legal prohibition against the execution and registration of the above said settlement deed. Therefore the settlement deed Ex. A-8 is null and void under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as '1972 Act')- The first defendant kept the first plaintiff with him till 13-2-1974. Being satisfied that a decent interval has elapsed, the first defendant informed the first plaintiff that he (the first plaintiff) executed a settlement deed in favour of the first defendant and his sons; and since the first plaintiff has no other property, the first plaintiff cannot expect to befed by the first defendant and asked the first plaintiff to get out of his house. Even during the stay of the first plaintiff with the first defendant, the first defendant did not allow the first plaintif to move alone, putting the first plaintiff under fear that if the first plaintiff goes out of the house alone, he will be beaten by the other sons. Being driven out of the house of the first defendant, the first plaintiff left Jegurupadu village and went to Secunderabad. In Secunderabad, the first plaintiff found a notice Ex. A-4 published in 'Samacharam' daily dated 24-2-1974 regarding the sale agreement, said to have been executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the first defendant. Then only the first plaintiff came to know that his signatures, obtained by the first defendant on blank papers, might have been utilised for forging the said agreement of sale. The first plaintiff also came to know that a settlement deed Ex.A-8 was managed to be executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the first defendant and his sons, conferring on them the remainder interest in respect of the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the first plaintiff got issued a notice Ex.A-5 to the first defendant. The first plaintiff also executed a registered deed Ex.A-7 dated 12-3-1974 cancelling the settlement deed dated 25-8-1973. The first plaintiff therefore filed the suit to cancel the settlement deed dated 25-8-73(Ex.A-8) said to have been executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the defendants and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit schedule properties.

(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendants 2 to 4, denying in general the plaint averments and raising the following contentions. The first plaintiff did not treat his sons with equal affection. He was liked very much by the First plaintiff. After the partition, he alone has been helping the first plaintiff. Therefore out of love and affection towards him and his family members, the first plaintiff, out of his own will executed the settlement deed dated 25-8-1973 voluntarily, openly and publicly to the knowledge of the other members of the family. The first plaintiff himself proclaimed about the suit settlement deed to the village elders. On account of jealousy, the other sons of the first plaintiff hatched a plan to win over the first plaintiff and created disaffection towards him. The first plaintiff was a strong- willed person but not weak both bodily and mentally. He never played any fraud upon the first plaintiff nor made any misrepresentation to the first plaintiff in getting the settlement deed executed. The first plaintiff is very intelligent and literate person, fully conscious of every thing being done by him. The first plaintiff himself went to the Sub-Registrar's office at Rajahmundry and got the suit settlement deed registered. Before executing the settlement deed, he made repeated requests to the scribe to prepare a draft and having understood the same very carefully and thoroughly, then only the first plaintiff asked the scribe to engross the same on stamped papers. Even before executing the settlement deed in question, there was an agreement between the first plaintiff and the first defendant that the first defendant shall pay the first plaintiff a Sum of Rs.l,000/-and 15 kata bags of paddy every year for his sustenance and the first plaintiff himself put the first defendant in possession of the suit schedule properties in June, 1973 itself. The first plaintiff/besides the suit settlement deed executed an agreement of sale for a sum of Rs.16,000/- and put him in possession of the properties agreed to be sold on 28-8-1973, with the hope that the first defendant should discharge the first plaintiff's debts etc. According to the first defendant, the first plaintiff was influenced and was forced to file the present suit and he suspects that a conspiracy was hatched upon at Hyderabad to get over the suit settlement deed, which was validly executed by the first plaintiff. The 1972 Act has no application to the first plaiantiff. The mind of the first plaintiff was poisoned by his other sons. The first plaintiff is not entitled to any relief sought for in this suit, as he himself has voluntarily executed the settlement deed. He issued a registered notice Ex.B-26 dated 12-9-1973 requesting the first plaintiff to comply with the execution of the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement Ex.B-14, to which the first plaintiff sent a reply intimating his happiness for accepting the settlement deed and promised to comply with the terms of the agreement of sale at an early date. Therefore the first plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.