P.V.RAGHAVULU Vs. P.LAXMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff, under Sec. 96 of the C.P.C., against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.10 of 2006 dtd. 7/4/2009 on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are as under:

(3.) In the written statement filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2, it is stated that the suit scheduled properties are not the family properties of plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and there was no joint possession of the properties; that the other defendants had purchased item Nos.1 to 5 of the plaint 'A' scheduled lands from the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of their respective lands; that there are no joint family properties to be partitioned between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 as on the date of filing of the suit and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the plaint 'A' scheduled properties. It is further stated that the plaintiff or defendants 1 and 2 are not in joint possession of plaint 'A' scheduled properties and as such fixed Court Fee cannot be paid. Defendant No.1 gifted away the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.199/AA, which is part of item No.6 of plaint 'A' scheduled property to defendant No.2 through registered gift deed No.1386/1997 dtd. 31/3/1997 and delivered possession of the said land and since then defendant No.2 has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said land. Defendant No.1 had also given Ac.1.03 guntas of land in Sy.No.199/A, which is part of item No.6 of plaint 'A' scheduled property to defendant No.2 towards Pasupu Kumkuma about 15 years back and she has been in possession of the same. The revenue authorities had also issued pattadar passbook and title deeds to defendant No.2 about 11 years back and she is paying land revenue to it. It is further stated that some disputes arose between the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2 regarding discharge of debts, performing marriage of defendant No.2 and that the elders settled the dispute and an agreement was also executed on 26/4/1997, which contains the signature of the plaintiff, and the same was attested by elders and defendant No.1 affixed his thumb impression on it. Subsequently, the plaintiff played fraud upon defendant No.1 and obtained thumb impressions of defendant No.1 on a document without disclosing the contents of it. Thereafter, defendants 1 and 2 came to know that the plaintiff got it registered as Gift Settlement Cancellation Deed. The revenue authorities had also issued pattadar pass book and title deeds to the plaintiff and defendant No.2 respectively to an extent of Ac.1.03 gts. each out of Sy.No.199/AA about 11 years back. It is further stated that the plaintiff forcibly took the pattadar passbook of defendant No.1 and used the same for taking loans. It is further stated that as there are no properties to be partitioned out of plaint 'A' scheduled properties, defendants 1 and 2 were not interested to contest the suit and they never engaged an advocate and thereafter they came to know that the plaintiff got filed vakalat and written statement through one M.Narendra Kumar, advocate, Nalgonda, in their names by forging their thumb impressions and signatures and since the plaintiff has filed the suit with a mala fide intention to extract money from them, they prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.