C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) JUDGMENT :the plaintiff in o. S. No. 58 of 1984, on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, srikakulam, is the appellant. She filed the suit for declaration that the relinquishment deed dated 18-7-1980 [ex. A-6] executed by her in favour of the 1st respondent (1st defendant) in respect of the plaint a schedule property, hereinafter called the suit property, is not true and is vitiated by fraud, and as such, she continues to be the owner thereof and for the consequential relief of possession of the suit properly by ejecting the defendants [respondents 1 and 2] therefrom.

( 2 ) THE case of the appellant, is that the suit property was purchased by her mother on 16. 4. 1928 and so consequent on the death of her mother in 1947, as per the law of succession at that time, she alone became entitled to the suit property absolutely and the 1st respondent who was managing all the properties inherited by her from her mother, fraudulently obtained Ex. A-6 relinquishment deed dated 18-7-1980 from her and sold a part of her property shown in the plaint B Schedule to the 2nd respondent. Since Ex. A-6 relinquishment deed was obtained by 1st respondent from her by playing fraud the same is liable to be setaside. 1 st respondent remained exparte. The case of the 2nd respondent is that the 1st respondent, with a view to gain unlawfully at his expense filed the suit in the name of the plaintiff. In support of her case, appellant examined herself as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-8. 2nd respondent examined her husband as dw-1 and eight other witnesses as DWs. 2 to 9 and marked Exs. B-1 to B-16. The trial Court holding that appellant failed to establish that Ex. A-6 relinquishment deed dated 18-7-1980 is vitiated by fraud, dismissed the suit. Hence, the appeal by plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE point for consideration is whether appellant is entitled to the declaration and consequential relief sought?

( 4 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the suit property was the Stridhana property of the mother of appellant, consequent on the death of her mother prior to the coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, appellant who is her only daughter became absolutely entitled to the suit property, without reference to the 1 st respondent and so the question of appellant executing a relinquishment deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the 1st respondent does not arise, and in any event by virtue of ex. A-6 relinquishment deed, 1st respondent cannot acquire any right in the suit property because for a relinquishee to acquire a right in the property covered by a relinquishment deed, he should have some right or semblance of right therein and since 1st respondent did not acquire any right in the Stridhana property of his mother, by virtue of Ex. A-6, he cannot acquire any right in any part of the suit property and so by virtue of Ex. A-7 sale deed executed by the 1st respondent in favour of 2nd respondent in respect of B-Schedule property 2nd respondent did not acquire any right therein. The contention of the learned counsel for 2nd respondent is that the mother of appellant died after the coming into force of Hindu Succession Act and so both appellant and 1st respondent became entitled to her properties. It is his contention that under Ex. A-5 sale deed the mother of appellant purchased several properties including the suit property and if really the mother of appellant died prior to the coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, appellant would have inherited all the properties covered by Ex. A-5 to the exclusion of 1 st respondent, so appellant would have claimed right in the landed property purchased under Ex. A-5 also and the fact that the appellant is not claiming a share in the lands purchased by the mother under ex. A-5, which are in possession and enjoyment of 1 st respondent, clearly shows that this suit is filed with a view to cause w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document