RANGA REDDY Vs. P ASWARTHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 3 and 4 are appellants. Feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree in O. S. No. 13 of 1985 dated 30-3-1990 passed by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Penukonda, this appeal is filed. Plaintiff and defendants 2 and 5 to 7 are arrayed as respondents. During pendency of suit first defendant, Venkatamma, who is none other than maternal grandmother of appellants, died and her legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 5 to 7. In this appeal, for the sake of convenience, appellants and respondents 2 to 5 are referred to as defendants and first respondent is referred to as plaintiff.

(2.) ADMITTED background of the case is as follows. Venkatamma, w/o. Devireddy Venkatappa, had two daughters, namely, Papamma and Venkata Lakshmamma. Latter is a spinster and was staying with Venkatamma at Pedapalli village of Bukkapatnam Mandal in Ananthapuram District. Papamma was married to Maddimadugu Subbi Reddy of Marlapalli. Defendants 3 to 7 are children of Papamma, who had died about two decades prior to filing of suit. It is admitted case that father of first defendant and father of one Sreerami Reddy are children of brothers. Venkatamma inherited an extent of about Acs. 12. 00 of agricultural land including Acs. 2. 00 of wet land (hereinafter, suit schedule land) from her father.

(3.) FIRST defendant, Venkatamma, filed written statement admitting execution of agreement of sale and receipt of amounts subsequently under endorsements. She however alleged that plaintiff was not having balance of sale consideration and it is he who failed to perform his part of contract within reasonable time. She further alleged that defendants 3 and 4 are aware of suit agreement and also that plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule land. They took major share of consideration paid by plaintiff. When first defendant asked for advice of defendants 3 and 4 with regard to realizing balance of sale consideration, they represented that agreement could be cancelled in Sub Registrar's Office. She was taken to Sub Registrar's Office, Bukkapatnam. A document was written and it was read over as if it was a document cancelling suit agreement. She being old and illiterate lady and was also in bad health, she believed defendants 3 and 4. After receiving suit summons, she came to know that defendants 3 and 4 misrepresented, played fraud and by exercising undue influence obtained document purported to be gift deed. She never intended to execute any gift deed in favour of defendants 2 to 4 and she never inducted them into possession.