V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS LPA arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge in A. S. No. 1772/84, dismissing the appeal though for different reasons and confirming the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 72/75 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor.

( 2 ) ORIGINALLY there were three plaintiffs. On the death of the 1st plaintiff, his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiff No. 4 and defendants 6 and 7. Defendants 1 and 2 also died and their legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 8 to 16. Defendants 2 to 5 were the tenants of the suit property. The suit was for declaration of title to the suit property, which is a house and vacant site and for possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and in appeal the learned single Judge confirmed the trial court s decree and judgment, though for different reasons. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal by the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) THE facts are not in dispute. Two ladies Kamalambal and Lokambal executed the deed Ex. A4 on 22-5-1958 in favour of P. W. 1, who is the son of Kamalambal s husband by his first wife, in respect of various properties including the suit property. Nearly 11 years thereafter, both the ladies executed cancellation deed Ex. B5 dated 20-8-1969 cancelling Ex. A-4 and simultaneously executed a gift deed Ex. B-6 gifting away the suit property in favour of the father of the 1st defendant. Subsequently on 5-12-1969 the two ladies executed a relinquishment deed Ex. A-10 in favour of P. W. 1 in respect of several properties covered by Ex. A-4, but excluding the suit property. The plaintiffs are the purchasers of the suit property from P. W. 1 under the sale deeds Ex. A-1 to A-3. The sale deeds were attested by the surviving sister Kamalambal, Lokambal having been passed away by that time. Subsequently Kamalambal also died.

( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiffs was that Ex. A-4 being a settlement deed in favour of P. W. 1 by which P. W. 1 acquired interest in the property, it cannot unilaterally cancel the gift deed as Ex. B6 in favour of the father of the 1st defendant was invalid and not binding on P. W. 1. The case of the 1st defendant was that Ex. A4 was not acted upon and that the cancellation of deed under Ex. B5 and the gift deed Ex. B-6 are valid. It was also their case that in any event the conduct of P. W. 1 disclosed that he accepted the cancellation deed and that he was satisfied with the other properties except the suit property on the basis of the relinquishment deed Ex. A-10. P. W. 1 was therefore estopped from claiming the suit property. The trial court permitted the plaintiffs (appellants herein) to raise an additional question during the arguments, whether Ex. A4 was not a settlement deed but was a will and that by virtue of gift deed Ex. B-61st defendant s father did not acquire valid title to the suit property.

( 5 ) ON a consideration of entire evidence on record, the trial court held that Ex. A-4 was not a settlement deed but a will, consequently by virtue of Ex. B-6 the defendants acquired title to the suit property. Several other issues have been framed and the trial court gave findings upon them, which are not necessary to narrate here for the purpose of this LPA. As a result of the above findings the trial court dismissed the suit.

( 6 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, it was contended by the plaintiffs-appellants that Ex. A-4 was a settlement deed which cannot be cancelled unilaterally and consequently Ex. B-6 falls to the ground. It was also contended that the conclusion of the trial court that Ex. A-4 was a will was erroneous. The learned counsel for the respondents argued before the learned single Judge that Ex. A-4 was in the nature of a will. Even assuming that it was not a will, it was argued that by virtue of subsequent conduct of P. W. 1 accepting the properties under Ex. A 10 P. W. 1 was estopped from claiming suit property under the gift. The learned single Judge di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document