NAYDAMMA V DIED Vs. M MADHUSUDHANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this revision are the plantiffs in O.S.No. 19 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla.

(2.) This revision shall also dispose of the Civil Revision Petitions No.2164 and 2167 of 1995 because of commonality of question of law and similarity of facts.

(3.) The facts giving rise to these revisions, in brief, are that - the deceased 1st plantiff was the husband of the deceased 2nd plantiff. The deceased 1st plaintiff was the owner of the suit properties. He filed O.S.Nos. 18,19 and 20 of 1985 against separate defendant in these suits for cancellation of the gift deeds in respect of the suit properties al leged to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant on the ground that he suffered a paralysis attack some time in the month of December, 1985 and became physically handicapped and lost his speech. At that time he was staying alone in his house because the 2nd plaintiff since deceased had abandoned him about thirteen years back and had started living with the defendant. The defendant with the help of his brothers, parents and the 2nd plaintiff since deceased admitted him in Sujata Nursing Home at Nidubrolu for treatment where he remained for about two months. But, he could not recover from the illness. He was then removed by them to their village Doppalapudi against his wish and was confined in their house. He was robbed of his cash and belongings. Later he was removed to Chebrolue thrice and every time a document styled as gift deed was got executed by him on 18-2-1984, 2-7-1984 and 27-10-1984 in favour of the defendant of O.S.Nos. 18,20 and 19 of 1985 respectively. He was made to nod his head before the Sub-Registrar at the relevant time. He was thereafter abandoned by the defendant and his brothers and parents. Later on, he was shifted to his native place Gollamudipadu and with the help of his brothers obtained the certified copy of the gift deeds alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant of each case. On obtaining the certified copy of the gift deeds, the contents were read over to him, which contents were absolutely false and he had never gifted his property in suits to the defendant. The gift deeds are sham and void having been obtained by exercise of undue influence and coercion. On these allegations, the plaintiffs since deceased sought a decree for declaration that the gift deeds should be cancelled.