LAWS(APH)-1958-1-1

MALLELA VENKATA SUBBAMMA Vs. GOGULAPATI RAJA RATHAMMA

Decided On January 31, 1958
MALLELA VENKATA SUBBAMMA Appellant
V/S
GOGULAPATI RAJA RATHAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff Mallela Venkata Subbamma alleging that she and the 1st defendant are the children of one Jammula Seshayya, that at the time of her marriage two acres of wet land were promised to be given to her husband but no document was executed in respect of the gift of the said land and that the father and the 1st defendant were in possession of the lands. Later on under an arrangement come to amongst the father, the son and the daughter the plaintiff, it was agreed that Seshayya the father should be in enjoyment of all the properties during his life-time and that the plaintiff should get a vested remainder in 2 acres 98 cents of wet land in survey No. D-12/6 in Perakalapudi village in Tenali taluk and also in some dry land, that the 1st defendant also was to get 1 acre 90 cents of wet land. In pursuance of this arrangement it is stated that two gift deeds were executed on 27-8-1942, one by the father and son in favour of the plaintiff and the other by the father Seshayya in favour of the son. It is stated that some time after, the 1st defendant got a collusive suit filed by the 3rd defendant, the mother-in-laws sister of the 1st defendant against Seshayya and the 1st defendant purporting to be on the basis of the promissory note said to have been executed by Seshayya, the father and attached the properties covered by the gift in favour of the plaintiff. This was O. S. No. 207 of 1942 on the file of the Court of the Dist. Munsif, Tenali. Seshayya was expert at the trial, although he filed a written statement questioning the execution of the promissory note by him and contending that it was a fabricated document. The 1st defendant, however, admitted the claim. An expert decree as against Seshayya and the 1st defendant was passed on 2-4-1943.

(2.) The property was attached in execution of the decree and the plaintiff herein filed a claim petition on 1-1-1943, Ex. B-12. This claim, petition was disallowed on the ground that she was not in possession. The Munsif rejected the claim petition holding that there was no proof that the property was not liable to be attached. Vide Ex. A-31 dated 5-4-1943.

(3.) Thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Tenali being O. S. No. 269 of 1943 for setting aside the above order in I. A. No. 49 of 1943 in O. S. No. 207/42. This suit was dismissed with costs on 26-4-1944 the plaintiff being absent. Her advocate appears to have been present. The suit having been dismissed the properties under attachment were brought to sale.