MENUKONDA VEERAMMA Vs. TUMMURI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 21 of 1981 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram, being aggrieved of the dismissal of the said suit had preferred the present appeal. Respondents herein are the defendants in the said suit. Appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit aforesaid praying for declaration of title, recovery of possession and also for recovery of certain amounts as past and future profits as well. The learned Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram, in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties having settled the issues recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, D.Ws.1 to 5 marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Exs.B-1 to B-9 and ultimately came to the conclusion that appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff had preferred the present appeal.

(2.) Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel representing appellant, had pointed out to the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the trial Court and would comment that in the light of the clear findings recorded by the trial Court relating to execution of Ex.A-1 dated 16-07-1979, the settlement deed, the other findings recorded by the trial Court relating to the validity of the said document in the light of the provisions of A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter in short referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience), cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also further pointed out to the evidence available on record and would maintain that when late Satteyya surrendered the excess land and when the surrendered lands also had been distributed to the beneficiaries in view of the fact that the purpose and object of the Act already had been fulfilled, the question of holding that Ex.A-1 is invalid on that ground, also cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the object of the Act to be taken into consideration. The learned Counsel while elaborating the submissions also pointed out to the language employed in deed Ex.A-1 and would maintain that in the light of the life estate being resolved by the executant and giving vested interest to the appellant/plaintiff the same to be taken as a Will and as much as the will would not fall within the meaning of transfer, the bar imposed by the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable. The learned Counsel also incidentally pointed out to the relationship between these parties and further, in particular, had taken this Court through the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. The learned Counsel also would contend that the bar imposed by the provisions of the Act may be operative otherwise but as far as in between private parties the said document executed by Satteyya being valid land binding, these contesting parties cannot challenge the same on any such grounds. The learned Counsel also specifically pointed out relating to the findings recorded by the trial Court regarding the validity of Ex.A-1 in the context of its execution. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the said findings recorded relating to the validity of Ex.A-1 i.e., the execution these findings had not been challenged by the successful defendants/respondents either by way of filing an independent appeal or atleast by raising cross-objections and hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by the trial Court, be set aside and the appeal to be allowed. The learned Counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

(3.) Sri B.Kantha Rao, learned Counsel representing Sri G.Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record and also pointed out to the relevant portions of the findings recorded by the trial Court and would maintain that in the light of the clear language of Sections 16 and 17 of the Act the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be found fault. The learned Counsel also, no doubt, raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the appeal in the absence of a question of law being involved in the light of Sec. 96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel also made elaborate submissions relating to the distinction between a settlement and a will and pointed out to the relevant provisions dealing with the definitions of these expressions both under the Indian Succession Act and also the Specific Relief Act. The learned Counsel also further made certain submissions relating to the transfer of property. The learned Counsel while further elaborating submissions would maintain that even if Ex.A-1 to be held to be valid as far as due execution is concerned, it is to be construed as a transfer of property or as an alienation. The said document would be void in the light of the specific bar imposed by Sec. 17 of the Act aforesaid. In the alternative, the learned Counsel also would maintain in the light of the recital reserving life interest in Ex.A-1 even if it is to be held to be a Will in as much as the said alleged Will Ex.A-1 not being the last testament of the deceased this also may not be of much help to the appellant/plaintiff. However, the learned Counsel would maintain that even if the recital of Ex.A-1 to be carefully examined this is to be taken as a settlement deed and hence, just to get over the rigor of bar imposed on operation of law by virtue of Sec. 17 of the Act this plea is being put forth that too for the first time at the stage of appeal. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the oral evidence available on record and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances it cannot be said that finally the surrender proceedings had been determined or finalized at the relevant point of time. At any rate, the date of execution of the documents is to be taken as crucial for the purpose of deciding the validity of the document in question i.e., Ex.A-1. The learned Counsel also relied on several decisions to substantiate his submissions.