DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J.

( 1 ) IS appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 17th september, 1991 in A. S. No. 69 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tanuku confirming the judgment and decree dated 30-8-1982 in O. S. No. 638 of 1978 on the file of i Additional District Munsif, Tanuku.

( 2 ) REFERENCE to the parties will be made as they are arrayed in the suit. Plaintiffs father Suranha executed a registered settlement deed dated 26-7-1963 (Ex. Al) in favour of the plaintiff gifting the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. However, plaintiffs father retained the life estate in himself and gifted only the vested remainder to the plaintiff. Subsequently, plaintiffs father individually and as guardian of the minor plaintiff sold the suit property to the 1st defendant under a registered sale deed dated 22-1-1975 (Ex. Bl ). Plaintiffs father died intestate on 7-6-1975. After the death of his father, plaintiff demanded the defendants who are wife and husband to vacate and deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and to pay him rents at the rate of rs. 60/- per month from 7-6-1975. Plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that he attained majority on 15-3-1978 and he is entitled to file the suit within three years from the date of attaining majority. He filed the suit on 13-9-1978. He sought declaration of his title to the suit property, for ejectment of the defendants, for the possession of the suit property, for recovery of Rs. 3,240/- as past mesne profits from 7-6-1975 to 7-9-1978 and also for future mesne profits till delivery of possession. The defendants resisted the suit. They pleaded that the plaintiff was born in the year 1956 and as the suit is filed beyond three years from the date of plaintiff attaining his age of majority, the suit is barred by limitation. They also pleaded that civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaintiff has to file eviction petition before the Rent Controller. They disputed the genuineness of settlement deed ex. A1. They also disputed that the plaintiff is the legitimate son of A. Suranna. They pleaded that as suranna sold the suit property to the 1st defendant for discharge of a mortgage debt, plaintiff cannot question the alienation dated 22-1-1975 and he has no right whatsoever as the property belonged to Suranna who purchased the same under a deed dated 8-6-1957. They pleaded that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the sale deed Ex. B1 is unenforceable the 1st defendant is entitled to the amount paid by her discharging the mortgage debt with subsequent interest. They denied that they were the lessees over the plaint schedule property. They pleaded that occupation by 1st defendant is only as an owner and in such circumstances the claim for damages for use and occupation does not arise. On the basis of pleadings of -both the parties, the trial court settled appropriate issues and additional issues. Both parties adduced documentary and oral evidence. On a consideration of entire evidence the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for Aggrieved by that judgment 1st defendant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court. The lower Court on a consideration of various contentions raised before it dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate Court, 1st defendant preferred the present appeal.

( 3 ) AT the time of admission of this appeal the learned Admission Judge treated the following points formulated in the grounds of appeal as substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in the present appeal. (I) Whether the plaintiff-respondent is not a universal donee and therefore, liable to reimburse the consideration paid underexs. B1 and B3 mortgaged by the appellant? (II) Whether the plaintiff is not liable to pay the amounts due under the doctrine of pious obligation? (III) Whether the suit is maintainable for declaration of title and recovery of possession without seeking for the cancellation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document