PUTTI RAMULU Vs. KOTHA GUNNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 in T.S. No. 76 of 1970 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, are appellants against the judgment and decree dated 30-6-1973 and 6-7-1973 respectively passed in the said suit. The plaintiffs' suit was for declaration of there title, confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the suit properties described in schedules A and B of the plaint.

(2.) The facts relevant for this appeal are as follows: One Kuti Parasuramudu was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5. He died on 15-5-1958 leaving his widow Puti Chitamma, adopted son Ganapati (father of defendants 3 and 4), natural sons defendants 1 and 2 and a daughter who is plaintiff 1 in this suit. Plaintiff 2 is the son of plaintiff 1. Defendant 5 is the son of defendant 1. According to the plaintiffs the said family properties (were settled) by a deed of partition Ex. 1 dated 24-6-1955. In the said family settlement the suit properties fell to the share of Parasuramudu. It is alleged that Parasuramudu died on 15-4-1958 and his widow Chitamma died on 10-4-1970. It is the plaintiffs' case that Parasuramudu during his lifetime gave an oral direction that the properties which fell to his share in the aforesaid partition would be given to his only daughter namely Gunnamma (plaintiff 1). In accordance with such oral direction Chitamma executed a document on 3-4-1968 (Ex. 4) giving the suit properties to plaintiff 1 and her son plaintiff 2. According to the plaintiffs they have been in enjoyment of the suit properties in their own rights by virtue of the said document. The plaintiffs further alleged that their possession with respect to the A schedule properties was interfered with by defendants 1 to 5 for which the plaintiffs along with Chitamma started a proceeding under S.144, Cr. P.C, which was subsequently converted to one under S.145, Cr. PC., and this proceeding ultimately ended in favour of the plaintiffs and Chitamma on 20-9-1969. After the death of Chitamma on 10-4-1970 defendants 1 to 5 tried to occupy the suit A schedule lands with the help of their supporters who are defendants 6 to 8 in this suit. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have no manner of right title and interest in the suit properties and this gives a cause of action to them to file this suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 filed a joint written statement whereas defendants 2, 6, 7 and 8 filed separate written statements. Defence taken by the said defendants was substantially the same. They contended that immediately after the death of Parasuramudu, defendants 1 and 2 along with Ganapati (adopted son of Parasuramudu) divided the share of Parasuramudu which was allotted to him in the partition deed in the year 1955. Chitamma and plaintiff 1 gave their consent to such division. According to the defendants the defendants 1, 2 and Ganapati separately possessed the portions out of the share of Parasuramudu and continued to pay cost separately in their own rights. After the said division of property Puti Ganapati sold away one acre of land at Godagoda Palli village to defendant 6 for valuable consideration and another plot of land measuring about 38 cents in Putigopalpur to defendant 8 and delivered possession thereof to the said purchasers. Similarly, defendant 2 sold 61 cents of land to one Mahala who is in possession of the same. Ultimately the said mutual partition was reduced into writing under a registered deed of partition dated 12-2-1968. The father of defendants 1 and 2 gave three bharanams of land to plaintiff 1 as dowry at the time of her marriage and he also gave some landed properties to his wife late Chitamma prior to the family partition which took place in the year 1955. The allegation that the late Parasuramudu expired after giving an oral direction that the properties which fell to his share in the family partition should be given to his only daughter plaintiff after the death of his wife Chitamma is denied as false. It is alleged that the settlement deed dated 3-4-1968 executed by Chitamma is a sham and fraudulent document which has been created with active connivance and at the instance of plaintiff 1's husband behind the back of defendants 1, 2 and 3 to 5 and their alienees. According to the defendants the said document is invalid in law and had not conveyed any title in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's case that they have been in possession of the suit properties was stoutly denied. Their title as claimed was denied. They also alleged that they have otherwise acquired valid title as they have been in possession of the suit properties for more than the statutory period.