G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) THE appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada in OS No. 169 of 1984, dated 21-11-1988 dismissing the suit.

( 2 ) APPELLANT is the plaintiff. She filed a suit against the defendant, who is her father for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property consisting of a total extent of Ac. 10-07 cents. It is the case of the plaintiff that she purchased Item-1 of the plaint schedule land having an extent of Ac. 3-07 cents from her brother V. Gopala Krishna for a consideration of Rs. 24,500. 00 under a registered sale deed dated 14-9-1971. It is her case that a sum of Rs. 24,000. 00 was paid as on the date of the agreement of sale and possession was given to her pending registration. On the very same day when the Sale Deed was executed i. e. , 14-7-1971, the said Gopala Krishna executed a registered gift deed in her favour in respect of the land of 7 acres and she was put in possession of the said land. Ever since the execution of the gift, she has been enjoying the same. The plaintiff also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of her father the defendant to look after her properties and he has been looking after the property by virtue of the power conferred under the General Power of Attorney. However, the General Power of Attorney was cancelled on 5-2-1981. It is the case of the plaintiff that in June, 1983, the defendant requested her to make her own arrangements to cultivate the land, but he created some obstructions at the time of harvesting the crop. Therefore, the plaintiff initiated proceedings under Section 144. The learned Magistrate passed Orders on 3-12-1983. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed a suit initially for perpetual injunction, but subsequently, it was amended on 17-1-1988 seeking decree for recovery of possession. The defendant filed the written statement. While denying the averments made in the plaintiff and he submitted that himself, his father and his son Gopala Krishna who was minor of 8 years partitioned the joint family property under a registered partition deed on 25-4-1955 so as to avoid the impending legislation of ceiling on agricultural lands and the said partition was only nominal and it was never acted upon and the entire property was continued to be joint. The cultivation was joint and they were also living jointly. It is also stated that Agreement of Sale dated 25-8-1970, which was executed in favour of the plaintiff by his son Gopala Krishna was also nominal and no consideration was passed and it was ante dated. Similarly, the Sale Deed and the gift deed executed on 14-9-1971 were nominal documents and they were executed on the ill advise to avoid the proposed land Legislation. It is also stated that Sale Deed was not supported by consideration and his son Gopala Krishna was in USA from 1961 to 1971 to pursue higher studies. Therefore, no Agreement of Sale could have executed by him. It is also stated that there was no obligation on the part of the Gopala Krishna, to gift away any property as he was not the father of the appellant or Kartha of Hindu Joint Family. It is also stated that it is not even gift made to her at the time of her marriage. Therefore, there was no obligation to execute Gift Deed in her favour. The possession of the suit land was never given to the plaintiff and the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment throughout in his own right and not as a General Power of Attorney. Sale Deed and Gift Deed were never acted upon. It was also alternatively contended that the defendant has perfected the title by adverse possession.

( 3 ) THE trial Court based on the respective contentions framed the following issues:1. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to possession of the plaint schedule properties? 2. Whether the suit is not barred by time? 3. Whether the gift deed dated 14-9-1971 in favour of the plaintiff is only a nominal document never intended to be acted upon? 4. Whether the par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document