(CHEEDELLA) SEETHIAH Vs. ARAVAPALLI MUTYALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2 and 4 are the appellants, This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent to recover possession of the plaint mentioned dry land, 6 acres 84 cents, in extent and assessed at Rs. 8-9-0, Government cist, together with past and future mesne profits. The plaintiff claims the suit property under a gift deed executed to him by the late Cheedalla Venkamma, the widow of Maddi Ramayya, who was an undivided brother of defendant 1 and the adoptive father of defendant 2. The said Venkamma got the suit land under a registered deed of settlement (Ex. C) executed in her favour by defendant 1 for himself and as guardian of defendant 2 (who was then a minor) on 20 October 1910 in satisfaction of her claim for maintenance. This deed was executed in pursuance of the oral directions given by her late husband, for the benefit of the family and with due regard to the worth of the family. The plaintiff states that he became entitled to the suit land by reason of the gift made by Venkamma to him in consideration of his having undertaken to protect her till her death. Defendants 1 to 3 raised several contentions attacking the validity of the plaintiff's claim. Defendant 4 is a tenant of the suit land.

(2.) Certain findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court have to be taken as undisputed for the purpose of this second appeal. Maddi Ramayya and his brother defendant 1 were members of a joint family and the former died as an undivided member. Defendant 2 who is the son of defendant 1 was adopted by Maddi Ramayya himself during his lifetime. The settlement deed (Ex. C) is a genuine document and was not obtained by Venkamma by undue influence or fraud. The provision for the maintenance of Venkamma made under Ex. C was quite fair and reasonable, having regard to the circumstances of the family of Maddi Ramayya.

(3.) The main question argued in the second appeal is whether the disposition of property in favour of Venkamma under the settlement deed, Ex. C, is valid and binding on her adopted son defendant 2. Its validity is sought to be established on the plaintiff's side on more than one ground.