KAPA KALESWAR REDDY Vs. S. LINGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals under Items (A) and (B) arise out of the judgment and decree passed by learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Fast Track, Aska in RFA No. 22 of 2004 which had been filed by the appellant of the appeal under Item (A), the defendant in the original suit. In the said appeal, the respondent of the present appeal under Item (A), the plaintiff of the suit had filed the cross-objection. The lower appellate court has allowed the appeal in part with modification of the share allotted to the parties and dismissed the cross-objection. Thus the two second appeals; one filed by the plaintiff (B) and the other one by the defendant (A) are before this Court.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

(3.) Case of the plaintiff is that one K.Rama was the original owner of the property in suit. He died in the year 1952 leaving behind his widow K. Sirimani and only daughter P.Mahalaxmi. The widow K.Sirimani died in the year 1985. P.Mahalaxmi and her husband P.Lokanath have four children i.e. three daughters and a son. The plaintiff is the son of a daughter namely, A.Krishna Kumari and the defendant is the only son of P.Mahalaxmi and P.Lokanath. The defendant of the suit is the maternal uncle of the plaintiff i.e. this plaintiff is the defendant's sister's son. It is said by the plaintiff that K.Sirimani had executed a deed of gift in favour of her eldest grand-daughter namely, A.Kamala in respect of land measuring Ac.3.25 cents and since then said land had remained in her possession and enjoyment. Said A.Kamala was issue less. So the plaintiff being the son of the younger sister of A.Kamala namely, A.Krishna Kumari had been kept by A.Kamala as her son since the time of his birth and they had expressed their desire to take him in adoption. However, the husband of A.Kamala died early for which the matter did further progress. In the year 1987, when A.Kamala wanted to take the plaintiff in adoption, there came serious objection from the agnates of her husband. The matter having stood like that A.Kamala wanted to gift away certain property in favour of her mother and another sister namely, Sabitri so that after some time they in turn would be gifting away the same property to the plaintiff. Pursuant to all these arrangements A.Kamala executed a deed of gift on 29.4.1987 in favour of her mother P.Mahalaxmi and younger sister Sabitri with an understanding and their whole hearted agreement that later they would gift away the property to the plaintiff. P.Mahalaxmi, the mother of A.Kamala had expressed before her death in the year 1991 that the property was jointly given to her and Sabitri by Kamala so that they would be gifting away the property to the plaintiff. So it is said that after her death it was decided that there would be an execution of the gift deed by the successors of P.Mahalaxmi and the daughter, Sabitri would also execute another gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. Pursuant to the said decision though father of the defendant went to the office with his daughter, the defendant who is the only son did accompany. He rather told the father to represent him in the matter. So on 4.5.1991, Lokanath and his daughter executed deed of gift in respect of land measuring Ac.1.95 cents in favour of the plaintiff. The lands finding mention in both the gift deeds were mutated in the name of the plaintiff who is paying the rent. The plaintiff when found the defendant to be strenuously chasing him to forcibly dispossess him from the suit land, the present suit has been filed. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the suit was initially one for permanent injunction and later on by amendment, the plaintiff has been allowed to make a payer for declaration of his right, title and interest.