Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Nayudu Venkataranga Rao And Another vs Ramadasu Satyavathi And Others on 27 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(4)ALD352, 2001(4)ALT492
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by defendants 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree dated 20-12-1985 made in OS No.100 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District.
2. The 1st respondent herein is the sole plaintiff, and respondents 2 to 6 herein are defendants 3 to 7 in the suit. During the pendency of the appeal, the 5th respondent died, and here LRs. are brought on record as respondents 7 to 11.
3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants to declare that the plaintiff is the adopted daughter of late Nayudu Ranganayaki, and that they belong to Devadasi Community or Dancing Girls Community and governed by the Caste Custom and usage with reference to the Law of Succession, and that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest in 'A' and 'B' scheduled properties, which Ranganayaki died possessed of, and to declare that the family settlement deed dated 18-10-1979 is not binding on the plaintiff and was brought into existence by playing fraud on the plaintiff by the defendants and hence cancel the same, and that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of 'A' and 'B' scheduled properties, and for recovery possession of the same, and for future profits; or in the alternative, for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and for partition of the same into four equal shares by metes and bounds and allot one such share to the plaintiff and to put her in separate possession of the same together with future profits.
4. The brief plaint averments are that late Ranganayaki belonged to Devadasi Community or Dancing Girls Community, and her mother was Nayudu Ramaratnam and grand-mother was Nayudu Pallavapani. All the three ladies belonged to Dancing Girls Community and practised their caste profession and are governed not by strict Hindu Law but by their caste custom and usage. Since late Ranganayaki had no male or female children, she adopted the plaintiff according to caste custom, when the plaintiff was only 2 or 3 years old. The plaintiffs father Nayudu Gopalam and mother Veeramma gave away the plaintiff to late Ranganayaki in adoption. Ever since the date of adoption, the plaintiff was treated and brought up by Ranganayaki as her own daughter in item 5 house of 'A' schedule at Ananthavaram, Amalapuram Taluk, after bringing her from her parents' house at Palivela, Kothapeta Taluk. Ever since the date of adoption, the plaintiff has been residing in item 5 house and is being brought up and trained in dancing and music at Ananthavaram. Ranganayaki got her married to the 8th defendant so that the 8th defendant may be treated as her illatom son-in-law and look after the cultivation of her 'A' schedule property. Ranganayaki and the plaintiff used to give public performance in 'Golla Kalapam' and 'Bhama Kalapam' etc., till the plaintiff's marriage with the 8th defendant. After her marriage, the plaintiff settled in married life and had been looking after Ranganayaki as her own mother.
5. The father of the plaintiff Nayudu Gopalam had two wives. His first wife Achamma died leaving behind her only son Lakshmanadas. Lakshmanadas married Rajyalakshmi. Defendants 3 to 5 are the sons of Lakshmanadas and Rajyalakshmi. Rajyalakshmi is the 6th defendant, who is the widow of Lakshmanadas. After the death of the 1st wife Achamma, Gopalam married his 2nd wife Veeramma. Gopalam through the 2nd wife Veeramma had two sons and two daughters: defendants 1 and 2 are the sons, and the plaintiff and the 7th defendant are the daughters. Gopalam, his 2nd wife Veeramma and defendants 1 to 6 have been residing in Palivela in their ancestral house. The plaintiff, her husband and children alone have been residing with her adoptive mother Ranganayaki at Ananthavaram looking after her welfare. The husband of the plaintiff (8th defendant) has been cultivating 'A' schedule wet lands as lessee of late Ranganayaki on condition of paying 8 bags of paddy per acre per annum by 1st January every year as rent for the 1st crop and enjoying the entire 1st crop and 2nd crop paddy. The relationship of the parties is shown in the plaint 'C' schedule. The plaintiff has 4 sons and 6 daughters.
6. The plaintiff states that because of the financial stability of the plaintiff, her husband (the 8th defendant) and her children, the defendants 1 to 7 developed grudge against them and conspired together and got Ranganayaki murdered through Rambabu aged about 18 years, who is the 2nd son of the 1st defendant, on 28-8-1979 at about 5.00 a.m., in item 5 house of 'A' schedule; and a case is pending against the 2nd son of the 1st defendant in PRC No.10 of 1979 on the file of the I Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Amalapuram.
7. Ranganayaki died intestate and the plaintiff is her sole heir entitled to inherit all her properties. Defendants 1 to 7 are not entitled to claim any right, title or interest in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties either legally or morally or according to custom and usage prevailing in their caste and community. Defendants 1 to 7 terrorised and threatened the plaintiff to incriminate her in the murder case. Defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7 represented to the plaintiff that they would keep all the gold jewellery and silver ware, costly silk clothes, etc., of Ranganayaki mentioned in 'B' schedule safely at Palivela or Rajahmundry in their personal and safe custody and return them in fact to the plaintiff after the police enquiry and investigation in the murder case is completed and otherwise the police would snatch and pilfer away the valuables if they are kept in the item 5 house. Believing the same, the plaintiff handed over 'B' schedule movables and documents of 'A' schedule properties to them on 29-8-1979 on condition of returning them to the plaintiff on demand. Her husband (8th defendant) and her son were at Vijayawada since 1st August, 1979 in constructing a railway building, and taking advantage of their absence, defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7 took the plaintiff's signatures on blank white papers and non-judicial stamp papers and took her also to the Sub-Registrar's Office at Amalapuram and got registered some documents stating that they are General Power of Attorney etc., without getting the documents read over and explained to her. Except signing, the plaintiff does not know reading and writing clearly. The plaintiff implicitly believed the representation of defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7 that by doing so, the 1st defendant's son would be saved and the plaintiff would not be incriminated in the criminal case. But, when she obtained the registration extract of the registered document dated 18-10-1979, she came to know the fraud played on her by defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7. The plaintiff never agreed to give them any share in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. They are not in possession of 'A' scheduled properties. The plaintiff alone is in possession of 'A' schedule properties. The said documents are not binding on the plaintiff and she is entitled to ignore them. When notice was issued to defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7, the 1st defendant only gave a reply with false allegations. If the Court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to the entire 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, a decree may be passed for 1/4th share in the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Defendants 1 to 7 brought into existence some collusive and fraudulent documents in favour of defendants 9 to 12 in respect of plaint 'A' schedule properties during the pendency of the suit.
8. Defendants 1, 3, 7 and 9 to 13 filed separate written statements denying all the plaint averments. It is stated that the plaintiff being a party to the partition list dated 4-9-1979 (Ex.B12) and registered family settlement deed dated 18-10-1979 (Ex.B14), she cannot file the suit for declaration of her alleged adoption and title to the schedule properties and for possession of the same and alternatively for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share to her without first getting the documents to which she is a party are cancelled and set aside.
9. The plaintiff, the 7th defendant and defendants 3 to 6 are not the heirs of late Ranganayaki as per the provisions of the Hindu Law. Ranganayaki never adopted the plaintiff. The plaintiff's husband being a mason used to reside in so many places including Ananthavaram, Palivela, Rajahmundry, Nandapeta, Vijayawada, etc. The plaintiff and her family never lived in the house property in item 5 of 'A' schedule. The plaintiffs husband (8th defendant) was not at all cultivating the lands of late Ranganayaki on lease. The death of Ranganayaki was an accidental death. It is stated that the plaintiff voluntarily executed Exs.B12 and B14, and there was no fraud or misrepresentation on her, and she was not the adopted daughter of Ranganayaki, and the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.
10. The plaintiff was examined as PW1; one Mr. Pentapati Venkatasubbarao, Kirana Merchant and resident of Ananthavaram village was examined as PW2; one Mr. Nukala Ramam, a neighbour to the house of Ranganayaki was examined as PW3; and one Mr. Vorugani Sreeramamurthy, the Headmaster of the Elementary School, Ananthavaram, where the plaintiff studied, was examined as PW4 on behalf of the plaintiff.
11. Exs.Al to A9 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. Ex.A1 is the study certificate issued by the Headmaster of Samithi Elementary School, Anantavaram to the plaintiff. Ex.A2 to A5 are the land revenue receipts. Ex.A6 dated 5-11-1979 is the office copy of the registered notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants. Ex.A7 dated 19-11-1979 is the reply-registered notice got issued by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff. Ex.A8 dated 28-3-1980 is the judgment copy in SCNo.14 of 1980 dated 28-3-1980 on the file of the Sessions Court, East Godavari, Rajahmundry. Ex.A9 are the entries at page 11 of the admission register of Samithi Elementary School, Ananatavaram.
12. The 1st defendant was examined as DW1; the 7th defendant was examined as DW2; the 2nd defendant was examined as DW3; the attestor of Ex.B14 was examined as DW4; the 3rd defendant was examined as DW5; another attestor of Ex.B14 was examined as DW6; and the erstwhile Village Kamam of Ananthavaram Village was examined as DW7 on behalf of the defendants.
13. Exs.Bl to B29 were marked on behalf of the defendants.
14. The trial Court framed the following issues:
"i. Whether the alleged adoption of the plaintiff by Nayudu Ranganayaki is true and valid?
ii. Whether the plaint B schedule is correct?
iii. Whether the partition and family settlement set up by the defendants is true?
iv. Whether the suit is not maintainable without prayer for cancellation of the partition deed and settlement deed?
v. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to any profits in respect of the plaint A- schedule properties?
vi. To what relief?
Additional issues framed on 27-3-1983:
"i. Whether defendants 10, 11 and 12 are not necessary and proper parties to the suit? ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of any of the suit properties? iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any profits, if so, from what date and at what rate?"
Additional issues framed on 2-4-1985:
"i. Whether defendants 14, 15 and 16 have inherited any of the properties of the 12th defendant?
ii. Whether the 13th defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value under the sale deed dated 12-6-1983 of the property shown in her written statement schedule?
iii. Whether the 13th defendant made any improvements to that property?
Additional issues framed on 25-11-1985:
"i. Whether partition dated 4-9-1979 set up by defendants 1 to 7 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? ii. Whether settlement deed dated 18-10-1979 is not true and is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation? iii. Whether the prayer of cancellation of the settlement deed dated 18-10-1979 is barred by limitation? iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition; if so to what share and in what property?"
15. On the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is not the adopted daughter of late Ranganayaki and the adoption set up by the plaintiff is not true and valid, and thus, issue No.1 is held against the plaintiff.
16. On Issue No.3 and Additional Issue Nos.l to 3 framed on 25-11-1985, the trial Court held that even if Ex.B12 is to be treated as only a memorandum of a past transaction, that past transaction itself is found to be in-equitable, and therefore, for the same reasons as are given for Ex.B14 for its inequitable distribution without valid reasons, the only reason being the wish of Ranganayaki which wish is not found to be true and correct; and the partition deed dated 4-9-1979 (Ex.B12) set up by defendants 1 to 7, though true, is not valid and binding on the plaintiff; and the settlement deed dated 18-10-1979 (Ex.B14), though true, is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation, and is therefore void; and the prayer of the plaintiff for cancellation of settlement deed dated 18-10-1979 is not barred by limitation; and accordingly held that the partition and the family settlement set up by the defendants is not valid and binding on the plaintiff.
17. On Issue No.4, the trial Court held that the issue does not arise for consideration in the light of the plaintiff having sought for cancellation of the settlement deed by way of amendment of the plaint subsequent to the filing of the suit; however, in view of the finding that both the partition list as well as the settlement deed set up by the defendants are void in their nature and because of fraud and misrepresentation and the inequitable distribution, they are not binding on the plaintiff and they have become void; and so long as they are void documents, there is no necessity to grant a specific relief for cancellation of such documents.
18. On Additional Issue No.l framed on 27-3-1983, the trial Court held that defendants 10, 11 and 12 are not shown to be necessary parties, as the plaintiff failed to show that defendants 10, 11 and 12 are in possession of any of the plaint schedule properties.
19. On Additional Issue No.l framed on 2-4-1985, the trial Court held that defendants 14 to 16 are admittedly the legal representatives of the deceased 12th defendant, and the 12th defendant has not purchased and is not in possession of any of the plaint schedule properties, and therefore, the 12th defendant is not a necessary and proper party to the suit under Additional Issue No.l framed on 27-3-1983; and consequently, the legal representatives of the 12th defendant are also not necessary and proper parties to the suit.
20. On Additional Issue No.2 framed on 2-4-1985, the trial Court held that since the plaintiff has failed to show that the 13th defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, the 13th defendant is entitled to the equity of allotment of the house to the shares of defendants 1, 2 and 3 to 6 in the partition by giving other property in compensation to the plaintiff and the 7th defendant.
21. On Additional Issue No.3 framed on 2-4-1985, the trial Court held that the 13th defendant has failed to prove that she has made any improvements to the property purchased by her; and the 13th defendant has not made any improvements to the suit house.
22. On Additional Issue No.4 framed on 25-11-1985 and on Additional Issue No.2 framed on 27-3-1983, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to partition of all the plaint 'A' schedule properties, and she is entitled to l/5th share therein; but however, the house property at Ananthavaram should be allotted to the shares of the defendants of the same for valuable consideration, while dividing the properties by metes and bounds as an equity in favour of the 13th defendant.
23. In respect of other 'B' schedule property, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share and certain items.
24. On Issue No.2, the trial Court held that the property shown in 'B' schedule is correct.
25. On Issue No.5 and Additional Issue No.3 framed on 27-3-1983, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to partition and profits in respect of plaint 'A' schedule properties proportionate to her share from the date of suit till the date of recovery of possession of her separate share.
26. On Issue No.6, the trial Court held that in the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decree cancelling the settlement deed dated 18-10-1979 and for partition of plaint 'A' schedule properties and items 1 to 7 of plaint 'B' schedule properties by metes and bounds into 5 equal shares and to put the plaintiff in possession of one such share. The plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 1,400/- towards her share in cash in respect of other movables shown in plaint 'B' schedule. The 13th defendant is entitled to the equity of allotment of the house property to the shares of defendants 1, 2 and 3 to 6 compensating the plaintiff and the 7th defendant in other properties. Each party is directed to bear their own costs. The plaintiff is entitled for future profits proportionate to her share in respect of the plaint 'A' schedule properties, which shall be determined on a separate application.
27. Against the said Judgment and decree dated 20-12-1985, defendants 1 and 2 filed this appeal contending that though the trial Court rightly held that the plaintiff is not the adopted daughter of Ranganayaki and the adoption set up by the plaintiff is not true, but erred in holding that the partition deed dated 4-9-1979 (Ex.B12), though true, is not valid and binding on the plaintiff. The trial Court similarly erred in holding that the settlement deed dated 18-10-1979 (Ex.B14), though true, but the same is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation, and therefore, Ex.B14 is void. For holding that Ex.B14 is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation, there is no basis; and the Trial Court is not right in holding that the settlement deed is void and cannot be acted upon and the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share in all movable and immovable properties. The learned senior Counsel for the appellants further contended that the plaintiff and all the defendants voluntarily executed the partition list Ex.B12 dated 4-9-1979, and as the 7th defendant raised a dispute with regard to the landed immovable property, all the parties have executed the registered family settlement deed Ex.B14 on 18-10-1979, which was proved by examining the attestors, and in those circumstances, it cannot be held that Ex.B14 document is obtained by misrepresentation and by playing fraud. There is no positive evidence constituting misrepresentation or fraud, and the trial Court, without any basis whatsoever, held that the settlement deed is vitiated by fraud. The plaintiff never pleaded that fraud has been played on her, but only stated that her signatures were obtained on blank non-judicial stamp papers and she was taken to Sub-Registrar's Office and got some documents registered, and the said allegation was not proved, and therefore, the Lower Court was not right in saying that Ex.B14 settlement deed is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. One of the main grounds for arriving at the aforesaid conclusion by the trial Court is only taking into consideration that there is inequitable distribution, and therefore, it is also a ground to show that misrepresentation was made. It is stated that pursuant to the settlement deed, the plaintiff has taken possession of the property fallen to her share and sold the same for the purpose of paying the Court-fee for her speculative suit, and therefore, it is not open to the plaintiff to contend that the settlement deed is not binding on her. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants further contended that the settlement deed Ex.B14 is in Telugu and the plaintiff is an educated lady, and therefore, it cannot be said that misrepresentation was made and fraud has been played on the plaintiff, while executing Ex.b14.
28. The finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff is not the adopted daughter of late Ranganayaki and the adoption set up by the plaintiff is not true and valid, has become final, as the plaintiff has not filed any appeal or cross-objections. The finding of the trial Court that Ex.B14 settlement deed dated 18-10-1979 is true, has also become final.
29. The points that arise for consideration in this second appeal are-
1. Whether the partition deed dated 4-9-1979 and the registered family settlement deed dated 18-10-1979 are not valid and binding on the plaintiff?
2. Whether Ex.B14 is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and is void?
and
3. Whether the alleged inequitable distribution, without valid reasons, can be a ground to declare that Ex.B14 is void and not binding on the plaintiff?
30. The admitted facts are that late Ranganayaki died on 28-8-1979. She is the exclusive owner of the suit schedule properties, and the properties were distributed under settlement deed (Ex.BH). Ranganayaki is a Hindu woman belonging to 'Kalavanthula' or dancing girls' community. She is the only female child to her mother Ramaratnam. (Ramaratnam has no brothers or sisters). Her grand-mother was Pallavapani. She died long back. Pallavapani was having a son and daughter, i.e., Gopalam and Ramaratnam, the mother of Ranganayaki. Thus, Gopalam is the mother's brother of Ranganayaki. Gopalam died long back, i.e., when the Hindu succession Act, 1956 came into force. Thus, Ranganayaki has no Class-I heirs or Class-II heirs. Gopalam had 2 wives, namely, Achamma and Veeramma. Through Achamma, he had a son Lakshmanadas, who married Rajyalakshmi (6th defendant) and died in 1976. Laxmandas had 3 sons, who are defendants 3 to 5. Through the 2nd wife Veeramma, Gopalam had 2 sons and 2 daughters: defendants 1 and 2 are sons; and the 7th defendant and the plaintiff are the daughters. Thus, all the defendants and the plaintiff are not the legal heirs of the legal representatives, but they are the distant relatives of late Ranganayaki.
31. According to the allegations in SC No.14 of 1980 (Ex.A8), one Rambabu, the 2nd son of the 1st defendant murdered Ranganayaki on 28-8-1979. The Sessions Court acquitted the said accused Rambabu, as the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the murder of the deceased Ranganayaki. While acquitting the accused, the learned Sessions Judge held that the properties mentioned in MOs.1 to 11 the gold jewels and MOs.15 and 16 a brass binki and a stainless steel plate, may be ordered to be delivered as per the judgment in the case filed by the plaintiff in this case, as it cannot be decided in the criminal case as to whether the deceased has any legal heirs. Accordingly, MOs.l to 11 and 15 and 16 are sent to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Amalapuram to deal with the movable properties by the Civil Court in OS.No.100 of 1981 for being delivered to the legal heirs of the deceased after enquiry according to law.
32. Ranganayaki died on 28-8-1979. Immediately after her death, a deed-dated 4-9-1979 (Ex.B12) was executed by all the parties to the appeal. As per Ex.B12, they have unanimously agreed and distributed the movable and immovable properties shown in the list of movable and immovable properties, and the particulars of movable and immovable properties, which have been partitioned and allotted to the respective parties, have been mentioned in the said deed. The said document is in proof of part-partition mentioning the particulars of the properties fallen to their shares. The said document is in Telugu, and the plaintiff signed in Telugu. Defendant No.6 and Defendant Nos.3 to 5 being minors, the 2nd defendant put her thumb impression. The 7th defendant, i.e., the sister of the plaintiff, also put her thumb impression. It is stated that as per Ex.B12, the immovable properties were partitioned during the life time of late Ranganayaki. The defendants 3 to 6 got Ac. 1.20 cents, the 2nd defendant got Ac. 1.00;
the 1st defendant got Ac.1.00; and the plaintiff got Ac.0.40 cents; but the 7th defendant was not allotted any landed property. In Ex.B 12, the weights of movable properties are also mentioned.
33. As the 7th defendant was not given any immovable property, she got issued a registered notice dated 15-10-1979 (Ex.B13) stating that late Ranganayaki owned and possessed Ac.3.60 cents of wet land at Ananthavaram and a tiled house, and she possessed 70 sovereigns of gold jewellery and 125 tolas of silver jewellery and utensils, besides other household furniture etc., and she is entitled to l/4th share in all the properties, since Ranganayaki died intestate, and demanded to divide all the movable and immovable properties into four equal shares.
34. After Ex.B13, all the parties to the appeal executed a General Power of Attorney on 17-10-1979 (Ex.B.21) in favour of the 2nd defendant authorizing him to act on their behalf to recover the gold apart from the gold possessed by them and the dues which Ranganayaki had to get from others, and after proper negotiations and about 25 sovereigns of gold deposited in the Court of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Amalapuram, and to engage a Counsel, if necessary, and to recover the articles and dues that are due to Ranganayaki. The said GPA was also signed by the plaintiff and also attested by the husband of the 7th defendant. The said document was proved by examining the attestors, i.e., DW4 (husband of the 7th defendant) and DW7, another attestor of Ex.B 12.
35. The next day itself,/.e., on 18-10-1979, all the parties to this appeal registered a deed of family settlement (Ex.B14) in respect of the immovable properties, i.e., agricultural wet lands and houses, and movable properties. As per Ex.B14, one acre of land was fallen to the share of defendants 3 to 6 to be enjoyed with absolute rights; 90 cents of land was fallen to the share of the 2nd defendant; 90 cents of land was fallen to the share of the I st defendant; 40 cents of land was fallen to the share of the 7th defendant; and 40 cents of land was fallen to the share of the plaintiff. The said document was attested by four witnesses, and out of them, three witnesses were examined as DWs.7, 4 and 6. Ex.B14 is also in the Telugu, and the plaintiff signed on the said document on all pages and in the Office of the Registrar. The execution of the said document was proved by examining the parties and the attestors.
36. After execution of Ex.B14, the plaintiff started the litigation by issuing a notice dated 5-11-1979 (Ex.A6) to defendants 1,2 , 3 and 7 stating that late Ranganayaki owned and possessed Ac.3-60 cents of wet land of Ananthavaram and a tiled house, and in addition to the said immovable properties, she also possessed 70 sovereigns of gold jewellery and 125 tolas of silver ware and utensils and other household furniture worth Rs.5,000/-, and she is entitled to 1/4th share in all the properties of late Ranganayaki, since Ranganayaki died intestate. It is further stated that the 1st defendant's daughter was given in marriage to the son of the plaintiff, and defendants 1 and 2 are the brothers of the plaintiff and the 7th defendant is the sister of the plaintiff; and when the plaintiff was unhealthy on 18-10-1979, she was misrepresented that she will be taken to Palivela, but there was a conspiracy by the said defendants, and she was taken to Amalapuram in a taxi and detained her near Government Hospital and obtained her signatures without informing her the contents of the same therein. It was not explained to her either in or outside the Sub-Registrar's office, and subsequently, the plaintiff stated that the document was registered without her knowledge and she is entitled to 1/4th share in all the properties.
37. A reply notice dated 19-11-1979 (Ex.A7) was given to the plaintiff denying all the allegations in Ex.A6 notice dated 5-11-1979 stating that the 1st defendant's daughter was given in marriage to the son of the plaintiff. On 2-9-1979, consequent on the dispute that arose regarding the division of the properties of late Ranganayaki, an amicable settlement was arrived at with the help of the mediators; and after the settlement, an extent of Ac.1.20 cents of land and 12 sovereigns of gold were given to defendants 3 to 6; and an extent of 90 cents of land and 12 sovereigns of gold were allotted to the share of the 2nd defendant; and an extent of 90 cents of land and 12 sovereigns of gold were allotted to the share of the 1st defendant; and an extent of 40 cents of land and 4 sovereigns of gold were allotted to the share of the plaintiff; but for the 7th defendant, only 5 sovereigns of gold was allotted.
38. As no land was allotted to the 7th defendant, i.e., the sister of the plaintiff, she issued a notice, and therefore, all the parties agreed to give some land to the 7th defendant also, and accordingly, the original shares that were agreed to be shared under Ex.B12, were redistributed, and 20 cents of land was reduced from the share of defendants 3 to 6, and 10 cents of land each was reduced from the shares of defendants 1 and 2, and the said 40 cents of land (20+10+10) was allotted to the share of the 7th defendant, and accordingly, Ex.B14 settlement deed was executed and registered, to which, the plaintiff was a party and the said documents were executed with free will and consent of the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff has no legal right to question the same. As a result of amicable settlement and agreement arrived at, Ex.B14 was executed with free will and consent.
39. Inspite of reply notice (Ex. A7), the plaintiff filed the suit initially as an indigent person in OP No.80 of 1979 and she sold away the property fallen to her share and paid the Court-fee, and ultimately, it was numbered as the original suit.
40. Thus, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that having acted upon the settlement deed (Ex.B14) and enjoyed the property and sold away the property that has fallen to her share, the plaintiff cannot question the settlement deed, and the suit filed by her is not maintainable.
41. As already stated, the alleged adoption set up by the plaintiff is not proved and the plaintiff is not the adopted daughter of late Ranganayaki. The plaintiff as PW1 in her cross-examination stated that after filing the suit, her brother (the 1st defendant) obtained her signatures on white papers and also on stamped papers purporting to be the papers required for a power; but prior to filing of the suit, her brothers have not obtained her signature on any paper. She further stated that her signature, were obtained, when she was unconscious due to anaesthesia, and therefore, she did not know for what purpose the signatures were taken by nurses. She further stated that her signatures were obtained by her brothers 10 days after the death of Ranganayaki. Thereafter, her brothers did not obtain her signatures on any paper. She was taken in a taxi car to Amalapuram by the 1st defendant; and when she went to the Sub-Registrar's Office, she found defendants 2 to 7 besides the 1st defendant; and she did not ask defendants 2 to 7 as to why they came to the Sub-Registrar's Office; and she did not talk to them in the Sub-Registrar's Office; and she was not having any disputes with them; and after signatures, she was taken back to her village by the 1st defendant. Thus, the evidence of PW1 destructs the theory of signing the blank papers. However, the trial Court held that Ex.B14 settlement deed is a true document executed by the parties.
42. The 1st defendant was examined as DW1. He stated that after executing Ex,B12, the 7th defendant raised a dispute and claimed a share in the immovable properties; and on the advice of the parties, the dispute has been settled and a deed of family settlement has been executed and it was registered on 18-10-3979 and it is Ex.B14. Ex.B14 was written in the Sub-Registrar's Office, Amalapuram in the presence of defendants 1, 2, 6, the 6th defendant's 2nd son, the 7th defendant, plaintiff, plaintiff's son, Palagutnmi Ramarao, husband of the plaintiff, besides attestors. Ex.B14 was attested by Palagwnmi Ramarao, DW7, Village Karanam, and it was also attested by the husband of the 7th defendant, namely, Pendayata Swyanarayana, who was examined as DW4. Neither the plaintiff nor her husband raised any dispute. It is stated that he has not obtained the signature of the plaintiff by making any misrepresentation. Ex.B14 was executed by all the executants voluntarily and after knowing the contents of admitting them.
43. The 7th defendant, the sister of the plaintiff, was examined as DW2. She stated that the properties were not distributed according to the wish of late Ranganayaki. She got issued a legal notice (Ex.B13); and upon the receipt of the said notice, she was given 40 cents of land of Ranganayaki under Ex.B14. Ex.B14 was signed in her presence by the plaintiff; and the plaintiff signed Ex.BI4 after knowing the contents of Ex.B14; and Ex.B14 was executed voluntarily by her, the plaintiff and others; and Ranganayaki did not adopt the plaintiff; and she sold away her lands after filing of the suit to one Sridevi. She further stated that at the time of division of the lands, the husband of the plaintiff was also present. Similarly all other defendants stated.
44. The attestors of Ex.B14 stated that Ex.B14 was executed voluntarily without playing fraud or making any misrepresentation.
45. The execution of Ex.B14 is proved, as the attestors of Ex.B14 were examined as DWs.4 and 7. DW4 is the husband of the 7th defendant; and DW7 is the Village Kamam.
46. With regard to onus probandi as to irregularity and the evidence as to character of identifying witnesses, the learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a judgment of the Privy Council in Gangamoyi Debi v. Troiluckhya Nath Chodhry, Vol. XXXIII Indian Appeals 60, wherein the Privy Council held as follows:
".....The registration is a solemn act, to be performed in the presence of a competent official appointed to act as registrar, whose duty it is to attend the parties during the registration and see that the proper persons are present and are competent to act, and are identified to his satisfaction; and all things done before him in his official capacity and verified by his signature will be presumed to be done duly and in order".
Thus, it is submitted that the document is registered voluntarily before the Sub-Registrar, and the said document is proved by examining the witnesses, and therefore, it shall be presumed that all the contents of the documents are true and valid, unless the contrary is established.
47. With regard to the family arrangements, the learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on an earliest judgment of the Privy Council in Khunni Lal v. Gobind Krishna Narain, Vol. XXXVIII Indian Appeals 87, wherein the learned Judges held as follows:
"The true character of the transaction appears to us to have been a settlement between the several members of the family of their disputes, each one relinquishing all claim in respect of all property in dispute other than that falling to his share, and recognising the right of the others as they had previously asserted it to the portion allotted to them respectively. It was in this light, rather than as conferring a new distinct title on each other, that the parties themselves seem to have regarded the arrangement, and we think that it is the duty of the Courts to uphold and give full effect to such an arrangement."
48. In Veeraju v. Sathi Raju, 1971 ILR 298 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court held:
"Family arrangements, it should be borne in mind, are made generally with intent to maintain good relations among the members of the family and good relations would involve mutual love and affection among the members of the family. To sum up, there are several factors which go to bring about a family settlement depending on the situation and circumstances in which the members of a particular family are placed at the relevant time and what kind of consideration would be enough or sufficient for the validity of such an arrangement depends on the facts of each case and the kind of consideration necessary may be different or vary from case to case and it is really difficult to lay down in precise terms what exactly is the sort of consideration that is required, but it is well settled that there must be some consideration although a Court may not be disposed to weigh it in golden scales or subject it to meticulous scrutiny".
49. In Pullaiah v. Narasimham, AIR 1966 SC 1836, the Supreme Court held that the Courts should lean in favour of the family arrangement that brings about harmony in the family. The Supreme Court further held as follows:
".....Even bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims will suffice. Members of a joint Hindu family may, to maintain peace or to bring about harmony in the family, enter into such a family arrangement. If such an arrangement is entered into bona fide and the terms thereof are fair in the circumstances of a particular case, Courts will more readily give assent to such an arrangement than to avoid it".
50. In Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, , the Supreme Court held as follows:
"This Court has also clearly laid down that a family arrangement being binding on the parties to the arrangement clearly operates as an estoppel so as to preclude any of the parties who have taken advantage under the agreement from revoking or challenging the same".
51. In Ramgouda Annagouda v. Bhausaheb, AIR 1927 PC 227, the Privy Council held that a party to the document having been benefited by the transaction, he will be precluded from questioning any part of the document.
52. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the plaintiff is a party to Ex.B14 and the landed property fallen to her share has been sold away, and therefore, it is not open for the plaintiff to question any part of the document (Ex.B14).
53. In Ponnammal v. R. Srinivasarangan, AIR 1956 SC 162, the Supreme Court held as follows:
"The validity of a compromise or family arrangement of disputed rights depends on the facts existing at the time, and will not be affected by subsequent judicial determinations, showing the rights of parties to be different from what was supposed, or that one party had nothing to give up".
54. In the instant case, the suit properties do not belong to a joint Hindu Family and there is no joint family, and admittedly, all the properties belong to late Ranganayaki, and Ranganayaki had no Class-I or Class-II heirs, and all the parties to the suit are distant relatives of Ranganayaki. Under the Hindu Succession Act, the parties have no vested right to succeed the said properties. Ranganayaki died on 28-8-1979. There was an agreement to distribute the properties of late Ranganayaki, and the said partition of the properties was agreed and reduced to writing on 4-9-1979 vide Ex.B12, and the signature of the plaintiff is proved as per Ex.B2, and subsequently, the shares were rearranged and redistributed by a registered settlement deed dated 18-10-1979 (Ex.B14), and the signature of the plaintiff is proved as per Ex.B5. The suit was filed on 27-11-1979 as a pauper/indigent person. As it was not proved that the plaintiff is an indigent person, as the plaintiff got certain properties, and even under the arrangement also, she got some properties and the properties were sold by the plaintiff and paid the Court-fee, and accordingly, OP No.80 of 1979 was numbered as OS No.100 of 1981. The suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that she is the adopted daughter of late Ranganayaki is held against the plaintiff. The trial Court held that the distribution of the properties is an inequitable distribution, and there was fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the defendants, and therefore, though Ex.B14 is true, but it is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and it is void, and the plaintiff is entitled for the partition of the properties, and she should be given 1/5th share. The evidence as extracted above does not show that any misrepresentation has been made or any fraud has been played on the plaintiff. In the light of the evidence as extracted and in the light of decisions, Ex.B14 is voluntarily executed and the said settlement is arrived at to distribute somebody's properties, and the plaintiff has no vested or legal right, as the case set up by her that she is an adopted daughter of Ranganayaki is disproved and her contention has been rightly negatived by the trial Court. The plaintiff and the 7th defendant are own sisters, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot get any more right, title or interest over the properties. Defendants 1 and 2 are own brothers of the plaintiff. May be, there was an agreement that defendants 1 and 2 being male members, the landed property was given more, i.e., 90 cents each., and the sisters have been allotted 40 cents each. Defendants 1,2,7 and the plaintiff are the children through the 2nd wife of Gopalam. Laxmandas is the only son through the 1st wife of Gopalam; and the 6th defendant is the wife of Laxmandas; and defendants 3 to 5 are the sons of Laxmandas, and therefore, defendants 3 to 6 are given one acre. None of the parties to the settlement has raised any dispute, as they knew fully well that they voluntarily agreed and settled the dispute and distributed the properties, and the same was reduced in writing vide registered settlement deed (Ex.B14). It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff never attacked Exs.B12 and B2. Without attacking Exs.B2 and B12, the plaintiff made an attempt to attack Ex.B14 only, though it was openly written in the office of the Sub-Registrar in the presence of Village Karnam DW7 and all the parties to this appeal and in the presence of the husband of the 7th defendant. According to the deposition of the husband of the 7th defendant, the husband of the plaintiff was also present. There is no direct evidence to demolish the depositions of the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants, and even according to the evidence of PW1, she has stated that she has not signed on any blank papers, and her allegations have not been proved. There is no pleading with regard to the fraud and misrepresentation, and the trial Judge only misinterpreted the stand of the plaintiff. In Ex.B14, it is specifically stated that none of the parties to the settlement deed is having a right to divide the properties and inherit the properties of Ranganayaki, and therefore, they were executing the settlement deed Ex.B14. The said contention has been proved that none of the parties has any right to succeed the properties of late Ranganayaki. The recitals of Ex.B14 must be treated as true and valid. It is for the parties to settle and agree for the shares, but the said settlement arrived at among the parties cannot be scrutinized by the Courts as held in the aforesaid decisions. The trial Court, without any justification, held that there is no reason why the shares agreed under Ex.B14 are not equal. As already stated, none of the parties has any right title and they are not legal heirs and they have no right to succeed, and therefore, merely because there is a distribution of the properties with unequal shares, it cannot be a ground to presume that there was a misrepresentation and fraud played and the document is a void document. The Trial Judge completely travelled beyond the scope of the factual and legal propositions and came to a conclusion that though it is not a joint family property, the males and females together have to take equal shares as legal representative of the deceased Ranganayaki, and there cannot be any inequitable distribution without compelling reasons, which are absent in the case. For coming to the aforesaid conclusion, there is no pleading by the plaintiff that the male members and female members must be distributed the properties with equal shares. The learned Trial Judge mainly considered that there is no equal distribution of the properties under Ex.B14, and the unequal distribution is purely a mistake of law and ignorance of rights, and therefore, Ex.B14 is necessitated not because of their ordinary settlement but it is necessitated to re-adjust their arrangement said to have been earlier effected because of the 7th defendant making a claim in the land and their accepting it as a charity. The trial Court assumed and presumed that though it is not a joint family property and the parties have no right to succeed the property, the parties are entitled to the equal shares, and in the circumstances, he himself presumed that there is fraud and/ or misrepresentation and/or ignorance of legal position in the distribution, which is inequitable or unconscionable because of lack of compelling reasons for such an inequitable distribution. The learned trial Judge was not specific as to whether there is fraud and/or misrepresentation and/or ignorance of legal position for inequitable distribution. The learned Trial Judge, misreading the judgment of the Apex Court in Shambhu Prasad v. Phool Kumari, , held that the family settlement is found to be inequitable and not fair.
55. The plaintiff has not disputed the execution of Exs.B2 and B12, i.e., partition list of immovable properties dated 4-9-1979, and it was executed with her free consent. Without pleading and proving, the trial Judge held that there is a fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the defendants, and the settlement deed Ex.B14 is held as void.
56. In Kale's case (supra), it has been held that when the members of a family or equal relation sink their differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and goodwill in the family, the family arrangement is not to be disregarded on technical grounds. Family arrangements are governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves, arid will be enforced if honestly made, although they have not been meant as a compromise, but have proceeded from an error of all parties, originating in mistake or ignorance of fact as to what their rights actually are, or of the points on which their rights actually depend. The object of the arrangement is to protect the family from long drawn litigation or perpetual strifes which mar the unity and solidarity of the family and create hatred and bad blood between the various members of the family.
57. It settled law that as far as the family arrangements are concerned, the Courts lean in favour of family arrangements. Technical or trivial grounds are to be overlooked. The execution of Ex.B14 is proved, and when the plaintiff consented to an arrangement as is evident from Ex.B12 and subsequent execution of registered settlement deed and Ex.B14 is not caused by any coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, and therefore, it cannot be said that Ex.B14 is a void document. It is not the case of the plaintiff that there is any coercion brought to, bear upon her and that any fraud or misrepresentation had been practised upon her. Under Section 19-A of the Indian Contract Act, when the consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, the agreement contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused, and the Court may set aside any such contract either absolutely, or if the party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit thereunder, upon such terms and conditions as to the Court may seem just. In the instant case, there is no pleading of any coercion or fraud or misrepresentation by the plaintiff. It is proved that the plaintiff freely and voluntarily executed Exs.B12 and B14 and her signatures are proved under Exs.B2 and B5. In the absence of the specific pleadings of fraud, misrepresentation and coercion and without free consent, it cannot be said that Ex.B14 is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation and it is a void document, and the findings of the trial Court are without any justification and without any basis, and it cannot be said that there is any undue influence or any misrepresentation on the part of the defendants.
58. Placing reliance on Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh, , the learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the plaintiff only believed that the instrument Ex.B14 was executed and got registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, and she being one of the parties along with the defendants, and she believed that her signature was taken on each and every paper and in the Office of the Sub-Registrar also, and she know Telugu, and the documents Exs.BI2 and B14 are also in Telugu, and she having known fully well the contents, she executed the said two documents, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document executed by the plaintiff. It is not the case of the plaintiff that she never intended to sign the said documents, and she never intended to be a party to the said documents, and therefore, in the absence of specific pleadings, it cannot be said that there is any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the defendants, and it cannot be said that Ex.B14 is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and it is void.
59. In Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh, AIR 1988 SC 881, the Apex Court held as follows:
"If the arrangements of compromise is one under which a person having an absolute title to the property transfers his title in some of the items thereof to the others, the formalities prescribed by law have to be complied with, since the transferees derive their respective title through the transferor. If, on the other hand, the parties set up competing titles and the differences are resolved by the compromise, there is no question of one deriving title from the other, and therefore, the arrangement does not fall within the mischief of Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act as no interest in property is created or declared by the document for the first time".
In this case, the properties have come to the hands of the parties pursuant to the settlement to distribute the properties of somebody else, though the parties are not entitled to inherit or succeed the same, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is a conveyance and the conveyance is necessary. But still, the parties have agreed to distribute the properties in the said fashion agreed under Ex.B14, and therefore, it cannot be said that the properties must be distributed with equal shares. In such cases, the Supreme Court held that such documents are not even necessary to register, but here is a case where there is a registered document; prior to it, there was an agreement under Ex.B12 and also they have executed a Power of Attorney under Ex.B21 giving their right to deal with the movable properties on their behalf. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as the parties to the suit have no vested right, title or interest, they are not the legal heirs or the successors to succeed the properties, it cannot be said that Ex.B14 is void as it was obtained by any misrepresentation or fraud has been played by the defendants.
60. For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that the partition list of immovable properties and movable properties under Ex.B12 and B2 and the family settlement deed dated 18-10-1979 Ex.B14 are true, valid and binding on the plaintiff. There is no fraud or misrepresentation by the defendants in executing the said documents and the said Exs.B12 and B14 are not void and they are binding on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is not entitled for the partition of the said movables and immovables de hors the registered settlement deed Ex.B14. The points are accordingly answered against the plaintiff and the suit is accordingly dismissed. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, each party shall bear their own costs.
61. The dismissal of the suit will not preclude the 2nd defendant, who is the General Power of Attorney Holder of all the parties under Ex.B21 to distribute the gold ornaments, which are transferred by the Sessions Court, East Godavari Division in SC No. 14 of 1980 to the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram for the disposal in OS No.100 of 1981.