PANDRANGI GOPALAM Vs. CHIDAMANA CHINNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE genuineness of the agreement date 25 -11 -1932, Ex. A -2, is involved in this appeal brought by the defendant against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam. The impugned document upon which the suit for recovery of Rs. 8,000/ - was founded is alleged have come into existence in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE defendant was a member of a family which owned considerable movable immovable properties. After the death of father, his cousins taking advantage of his less position denied him a share in the properties. Nay more. They drove him out of house. He was thus deprived of the sustenance and also financial backing to fight his power cousins. Faced with this situation, he sought the assistance of one Lakshimayya to litigate Courts for the recovery of these properties.

(3.) IT was contended by the defendant in written statement that the agreement was genuine, that it must have been brought into existence long after the litigation referred to above came to an end and that in any event the was barred by limitation. The trial Court acting on the testimony of witnesses on the execution and genuineness of Ex. A -2 decreed the for Rs. 8,000/ - with interest from the date of the plaint. The conclusions of the Subordinate Judge are assailed before us.