( 1 ) THIS second appeal is at the instance of the second defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Court of District Judge, Nellore, in A. S. No. 95 of 1988, dated 214-1993 by which the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Nellore, in O. S. No. 819 of 1983, dated 5-9-1988 dismissing (sic decreeing) the suit was confirmed.

( 2 ) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking for cancellation of the sale deed dated 26-3-1980 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as illegal and invalid, and the first defendant has no right or authority to execute such sale deed. According to the respondent/ plaintiff, the suit schedule property belongs to his maternal grandfather Bomma suryanarayana, who purchased the same out of his own money along with some other property and obtained a registered sale deed in the name of his wife Bomma narsamma in the year 1941. Later even during the lifetime of his wife B. Narsamma, who pre-deceased him, executed Ex. A. 2 sale deed dated 20-6-1951 in respect of half of the property, which he purchased under ex. A. 3 sale deed dated 31-12-1941. It was also the case of the plaintiff that his grandfather executed a registered Will ex. A. 6, dated 14-4-1948 (certified copy) under which he disposed of all his properties with life interest to the first defendant, who is the mother of the plaintiff, and vested remainder to the plaintiff with absolute rights, therefore, the first defendant has no right to dispose of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit itself, the first defendant died and being the only son, the plaintiff was recorded as legal heir of the first defendant. The first defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant, who is stated to be the wife of paramour of the first defendant without any sale consideration and nominally obtained the sale deed under ex. A. 1. As the first defendant has no capacity to dispose of the said property, as she has no absolute rights and further as the same was nominally executed, the same has to be declared as invalid.

( 3 ) THE suit filed by the plaintiff was contested by the second defendant, who is stated to be the purchaser under Ex. A. 1 sale deed from the first defendant.

( 4 ) THE second defendant disputed the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint. It was claimed that the property was the stridhana property of Bomma Narasamma, who is the mother of the first defendant and wife of Bomma Suryanarayana, and after her death, the property devolved upon the first defendant as the only daughter, therefore, neither Bomma Suryanarayana nor the plaintiff has got any right over the suit schedule property, and therefore, Bomma suryanarayana has no right to execute ex. A. 6 Will in respect of the suit schedule property and the sale deed executed by the first defendant under Ex. A. 1 is valid and binding on all the parties, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) THE trial Court negatived the claim of the defendant and agreed with the contention of the plaintiff that the property was not the Stridhana property of Bomma narasamma, therefore, the same would devolve on the first defendant as well as the plaintiff under Ex. A. 6 Will executed by bomma Suryanarayana, as per which the first defendant has got only life interest, and therefore, the sale deed executed by her, disposing of the suit schedule property, is invalid. On appeal by the second defendant, the said judgment and decree of the trial Court was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Hence the present second appeal.

( 6 ) IN the present second appeal, though as many as four grounds are raised, the sum and substance of the grounds is, whether the transaction of purchase by bomma Suryanarayana in the name of his wife would attract the provisions of Benami transactions Prohibition Act, 1988, and if so, can the plaintiff claim the property under ex. A. 6 Will executed by his grandfat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document