KONA KANTHAMMA Vs. GUNTAMUKKALA SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these matters are interconnected with each other and were directed to be heard together as parties in both the matters are common. Accordingly, I have heard Sri V. V. L. N. Sarma, learned Counsel for the appellant in the second appeal and for the petitioner in revision petition as well as Sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondent in both the matters.

(2.) THE appellant in the second appeal and the 1st petitioner in revision petition is being referred to hereunder as 'appellant' for the sake of convenience.

(3.) THE respondent herein filed the written statement denying the plaint allegations alleging that the appellant herself borrowed money and was managing her affairs independently. It is also asserted that she herself engaged an advocate and defended herself in the said legal action taken by the creditor and only for the purpose of settling the said creditor, when she required the amount, she requested the respondent, as a brother, to purchase the plaint-A schedule house. The respondent claims that in the said situation, he agreed to purchase the said schedule house and paid the decreetal amount to the creditor and obtained full satisfaction receipt and thereafter, the appellant along with her son (petitioner No. 2 in CRP) executed a registered sale deed in his favour on 12. 5. 1978. The respondent, further, invested money for repairs of the house and the respondent has allowed her to continue in the same house on a nominal rent of Rs. 40/ - per month. The said rents were paid very irregularly by her and ultimately, she committed default from January 1984 compelling the respondent to issue a notice dated 2. 4. 1985, which was not served on her and he once again issued another notice, dated 12. 4. 1985, Ex. A-1 and after noticing her evasive reply, Ex. A-3, dated 25. 4. 1985, he filed R. C. C. No. 30 of 1985 before the learned Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Kakainda, for eviction of the appellant and her son. The respondent, therefore, denied that there is any fraud committed by him as alleged and further alleged that the present suit is filed as a counterblast to the R. C. C. No. 30 of 1985 fled by him.