VAKKALAGADDA VENKATARAMA RAO Vs. SRIMATHI VAKKALAGADDA SEETHARATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. He laid the suit O.S. No. 4 of 1957 in the District Court, West Godavari at Eluru against his mother the first defendant and defendants 2 and 3, the alienees of the first defendant, for declaration of his title to "an undivided half of items 1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties and for a permanent injunction restrating defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, except in respect of items 1 and 3 in which the first defendant has life interest and for possession of item 5 of the plaint schedule property with subsequent profits.

(2.) The following are the relevant averments in the plaint. The plaintiff (appellant) is the only son of his parents and it was always their intention and desire that he should take all the properties with absolute rights. The plaintiff's mother, the first defendant was a very quarrelsome person and in order to appease her and satisfy her whims, he and his father executed in her favour a gift deed dated 9th August, 1955 (Exhibit A-1) and registered it on 12th August, 1925. The gift deed provides that the properties shown in the gift deed are to be enjoved by the first defendant during her life time without any right of alienation and after her life, they should devolve on the plaintiff. The document also indicates that the plaintiff's father gave up his rights in the family properties and agreed to be maintained for life from out of the income from the properties mentioned in the deed. The plaintiff's father died at the age 74 and for three or four years prior to his death, he was weak both in body and mind and was incapable of entering into any valid transactions. The first defendant took advantage of the physical and mental condition of her husband and by exercising undue influence over him made him execute two gift deeds dated 5th March, 1954, in hei favour. These documents were brought about by the first defendant, by fraud and coercion and therefore they are not valid and binding on the plaintiff and do not also convey any rights to the first defendant. The plaintiff continues to be in possession in his own right of the immoveable properties covered by the deed Exhibit B-4, dated 5th March, 1954 except items 1 and 4 which were gifted to the first defendant under the gift deed Exhibit A-1. The first defendant sold a portion of item 1 of the suit property to the second defendant under a sale deed (Exhibit B-22) dated 19th March, 1956 and sold item 5 a house to the third defendant under a sale deed (Exhibit B-23) dated 10th December, 1956. These two alienations are not valid and binding on the plaintiff. The properties were joint family properties and the plaintiff's father got item 5 under a will 12th March, 1947 executed by his paternal aunt Lakshmi kanthamma. This property was not treated as his separate property by his father but was thrown into the joint family hotchpot and blended with the family properties.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the first defendant on the ground that item 2 of the plaint schedule is the self-acquired property , of her husband while item 5 was bequeathed to him under a will and it was never blended with the joint family properties. Her husband never made an oral relinquishment of his rights in the properties in favour of their son. Since the family had utilised her stridhana property both the plaintiff and his father executed a gift deed (Exhibit A-1) to reimburse her. Two gift deeds were executed by her husband on 15th March, 1954 one in respect of his moveables and the other in respect of the immovable properties to the extent of his undivided half share in the joint fajnily properties. The allegation that one deeds are brought about by any undue influence or coercion or by committing any fraud on her husband is false. Her husband was in a sound and disposing state of mind till his death and the two gift deeds are true and valid. The alienations made by her to defendants 2 and 3 cannot be questioned as she had absolute rights over the properties.