AGASTI KARUNA Vs. CHERUKURI KRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants herein. O.S. No. 3 of 1977 on the file of the Subordinate Judge. Bapatia was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of item Nos. 2 and 4 of the plaint 'A' schedule into four equal shares and to allot one such share to each of the two plaintiffs and for delivery of separate possession and also for declaration that the plaintiffs are successors in respect of item No. 1 of Plaint 'A' schedule and that they are entitled to l/3rd share in the plaint 'A' schedule properties. For the sake of convenience the parties in this appeal would be referred to in accordance with their ranking in the suit.

(2.) The plaint averments in brief are as set out hereunder:-Plaintiffs 1 and 2 claim themselves to be the daughters of late Pan- dalaneni Hanumantha Rao' hereinafter referred to as 'Hanumantha Rao' for the sake of convenience. Defendant No. 3 is the son and defendant No.4 is the wife of late Hanumantha Rao. Late Hanumantha Rao was having plaint 'A' schedule properties. Item No. 1 of plaint 'A' schedule is Ac. 1-00 of wet land situate in Khajipalem village. Item No.2 is Ac. 1-04 cents of wet land in D.No.457/6 of Khajipalem village, Item No. 5 is Ac. 0-61 cents of wet land in item No.2. Item No.3 is Ac. 0-29 cents of wet land in D.No. 457/5 and item No. 4 is a vacant site of Ac.0-05 cents which is house site. Regarding item No. 1, it is the case of the plaintiffs that late Hanumantha Rao executed a registered gift deed dated 16-5-1945 conferring life estate on the 4th defendant Nagendramma and the vested remainder in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have accepted these gifts and according to them they are entitled for declaration of title and possession of the said land. Regarding items 2 to 5 of plaint 'A' schedule, the plaintiffs' case is as set out here under:- In 1961 late Hanumantha Rao died inte-state and possessed of Items 2 to 4 of plaint 'A' schedule and leaving behind him, the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 as his legal representatives. Each of the plaintiffs is entitled to 14th share as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and in item No. 1 pf the plaint 'A' schedule each of the plaintiffs has l/3rd share. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2 in collusion with the 4th defendant Nagendramma brought into existence some documents without any consideration. The 2nd defendant purchased item No. 5 of plaint 'A' schedule under a registered sale deed dated 12-3-1964 executed by the 4th defendant on her behalf as well as guardian of the 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant is in unlawful possession of items 1 and 2 and an extent of Ac.0-42, 3/4 cents in item No. 2. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2 did not get any valid title and the transactions are void in law. Plaintiffs further contended that the 4th defendant did not obtain any permission from the Court before alienating the properties as per the requirement of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and that the alienations are bad in law.

(3.) Defendants 3 and 4 remained exparte. The case of defendants 1 and 2 is similar although they filed separate written statements and their stand is as set out hereunder-The plaintiffs are not the daughters of late Hanumantha Rao. Even otherwise the gift deed dated. 16-5-1945 set up by the plaintiffs is not valid. Even otherwise what the 4th defendant gets by virtue of the gift deed is absolute title over the property but not limited estate as per the recitals in the gift deed. The rights of the women are enlarged under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Thus, according to the defendants, item No. 1 of plaint 'A' Schedule is the absolute estate given to the 4th defendant and that the concept of limited estate has become absolute. The case of defendants 1 and 2 further is that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and that the suit is not maintainable because the plaintiffs did not file the suit within three years of becoming major, and secondly the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession for more than 12 years. For this reason also, according to the defendants, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The 1st defendant purchased Ac. 1-63 cents in items 1 to 3 from defendants 3 and 4 under a contracts of sale dated 5-9-1962 for a consideration of Rs. 42:20 per cent and has paid a total sum of Rs. 6,967/- The 1st defendant was put in possession on 5-9-1962 and eversince that time he has been enjoying the property in his own right and adverse to the rights of the family of defendants 3 and 4 and has been paying cost. At that time the 3rd defendant was a minor and the 4th defendant wanted to purchase the lands at Kolakaluru and Annamarlapudi Agraharam and settled at Kolakaluru which is her paternal aunt's place. With that idea she sold that land of Ac. 1-63 cents in the suit schedule lands and in fact defendants 1 and 2 paid the consideration for the said land purchased by the 4th defendant at Kolakaluru and Annamarlapudi Agraharam. These two sale deeds were registered on 5.9.1964 and they prove that for a valid consideration defendants 3 and 4 sold the plaint. 'A' schedule lands and purchased different lands at Kolakaluru and Annamarlapudi Agraharam. Defendants 1 and 2 further contended that the plaintiffs collided with defendants 3 and 4 and got the suit filed to unsettle the established rights of defendants 1 and 2 over the plaint 'A' Schedule items 1 to 3 and 5.