BATHULA ANASUYA Vs. BATHULA RAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was laid for partition of plaint A and B schedule properties and for separate possession of one-sixth share. The plaint case is that the first plaintiff is the wife of one Devallu who is the brother of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and the son of the first defendant. He died in the year 1972 intestate. During his lifetime, he executed a nominal document on December 22, 1965, relinquishing the property in favor of the first defendant. None the less, he lived as a member of the joint family and died as a member of the said family. The said document was never intended to be acted upon but was executed to protect the property against his wayward life. After the death of Devallu, the defendant did not heed to the request of the first plaintiff to perform the marriage of the second plaintiff. Hence, the suit for recovery of shares in the plaint A and B schedule properties.

(2.) The defendants contested the claim stating that the relinquishment deed executed by Devallu (exhibit A-1) is true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs since the date of the execution and Devallu lived separately and he had nothing to do with the joint family and the present suit is not maintainable. On this controversy, the court below framed issues as found in paragraph 7 of the judgment and held that the execution of exhibit A-1 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share in the suit properties and consequently dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiffs urged that exhibit A-1 is a nominal one and the finding of the court below to the contrary is vitiated. Besides refuting this contention, learned counsel for the defendants contended that this plea, besides being incorrect, cannot be entertained in view of the provisions of the Benami transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance (2 of 1988).