KILARU VENKATASUBBAYYA Vs. KALLURI PADMALAYAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the sole plaintiff against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tenali, in O.S. No. 65 of 1961 on his file, rejecting his claim for specific performance of a contract to sell immovable property in his favour, and granting a decree for part of the consideration which he had paid thereunder. The facts leading to this appeal may shortly be stated.

(2.) One Kalluri Rangayya, resident of Moparru village in Tenali Sub-District, Guntur District, had two sons (1) Varaprasada Rao, husband of the 1st defendant, Padmalayamba, and (2) Jaganmohan Rao, the 2nd defendant. Rangayya (D.W. 2) and landed property which he divided between himself and his two sons. His elder son, Varaprasada Rao, who is a doctor, opened an X'ray Clinic at Nizamabad, and has been carrying on his profession at Nizamabad since 1952, and living there with the 1st defendant, whom he married in 1950. Jaganmohan Rao, the 2nd defendant, though he obtained Master's Decree in Arts, settled down in Moparru and is attending to the cultivation of his lands. The lands which fell to the share of Varaprasada Rao were managed by Rangayya, who was keeping the income therefrom. It is not disputed that the relations between the father and his two sons, despite the division of the properties, were cordial and affectionate.

(3.) The mother of the 1st defendant owned Ac. 14-54 of Seri Magani land situate in five survey numbers in Nelapadu village, also in Tenali Sub-District, having got it from her father. Out of the said land, she gifted in 1955 Ac.10-00 (thesuit land) to her daughter, the 1st defendant, and the rest of the land to her elder brother, by two separate deeds. Lingarao Chowdary, husband of the 1st defendant's elder sister, who arranged the marriage of the 1st defendant, was managing the suit land, leasing it to tenants, collecting the Makta, and remitting it to the 1st defendant. Evidenty apprehending legislation in favour of tenants, Rangayya personally cultivated the suit lands in 1956 and 1957, and remitted the income to D-1. Though it does not appear that the Ac. 10-00 of land was exactly measured, after the gift in favour of D-i, it was assumed that the land managed by Lingarao Chowdary and cultivated by the father-in-law of the 1st defendant was approximately of that extent.