K KULANDA REDDY Vs. K C VENKAIA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second Appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff against the judgment in Appeal Suit No.183 of 1978 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Guntur.

(2.) The suit in O.S.No.100 of 1971 was filed for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property and for past profits. O.S.No.12 of 1973 was also filed by him for rendition of accounts along with the above suit and both the suits were tried together. The trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.100 of 1971 and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.12 of 1973. The matter was carried in appeal and cross-appeals were also preferred therein. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal but modified the grant of future profits from the date of suit till the date of possession. However, no appeal was preferred against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.12 of 1973. The matter was then carried in Second Appeal and this Court in Second Appeal No.417 of 1981 remanded the matter to the lower appellate Court for giving a finding about the plea of adverse possession raised by the appellant ( defendant) before it. Thus, the matter was heard again by the lower appellate Court.

(3.) The deceased first plaintiff is the son of one Chinna Koti Reddy. It was averred in the plaint that after the death of Pedda Koti Reddy, the elder brother of the said Chinna Koti Reddy, disputes arose till the end of 1959 and that as Pedda Koti Reddy, his wife and daughter passed away the entire property devolved on the plaintiff and that Chinna Koti Reddy having become insane could not manage the properties and that the defendant who is the nephew of the said Chinna Koti Reddy happened to look after the plaintiff and manage the affairs and that he got impleaded as guardian and next friend of the plaintiff in the litigation till the culmination of the proceedings in the Second Appeal No.762 of 1954 on the file of High Court by the end of 1959. It was further averred that till about two years prior to the filing of this suit, the defendant has been looking after the plaintiff and his properties, that the plaint schedule property is part of plot of about Ac.5-00 in D.No.79/A situated in Koritipadu, Guntur, that although the plaintiff became major prior to the filing of the suit, the defendant continued to be in the management till the summer of 1959 when the defendant chose to deliver possession of the rest of the properties except plaint schedule property to the plaintiff, that on enquiry the plaintiff came to know that the defendant played fraud on him and his father and that he managed to bring into existence a nominal and fraudulent gift deed to the plaint schedule properties and that the said gift deed is void.