K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THIS is unsuccessful plaintiff s first appeal against the judgment and decree of dismissal of her suit for cancellation of the decree and permanent in junction in o. S. No. 26 of 1978 dated 31-12-1982 passed by the Subordinate Judge at Warangal.

( 2 ) THE facts which are no longer in dispute before me, in short, are as follows:-

( 3 ) THE appellant and the 3rd respondent are cousins. The respondentno. 2 is the real brother of the respondentno. 3, who is the mother of the respondent No. 1. On 21-11-1974 the 1st respondent was married with the only son of the appellant-plaintiff, who was a school teacher and owned the house bearingno. 7/878 and 7/878/1 (for short the suit house ) situated at ujli Base, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

( 4 ) THE appellant-plaintiff brought the suit o. S. No. 26 of 1978 against the respondents alleging that she is the second wife of her husband who had ten children from the first wife and only one child from her. Her son had become way ward and his behaviour was not good The relationship between her son and the 1st respondent became strained and, therefore, the 1st respondent started blaming the appellant for the unhappy state of affairs. She became worried as the domestic peace was distributed. The respondents exploited the situation to their advantage and gained ascendancy over the will by continuous coaxing and goading. They formulated a scheme and impressed upon the appellant-plaintiff that if the suit house is normally transferred in the name of the 1st respondent and she is shown to exercise the authority therein, it would act as a deterrent and would bring round her son and he may mend himself In pursuance of the aforesaid scheme formulated by the respondents, a suit bearing o. S. No. 137 of 1976 was filed in the court of subordinate Judge at Warangal by the respondents No. 1 against the appellant for a declaration that she should be declared as the owner of the suit house and for a permanent in junction restraining the appellant from interfering with her possession. On the strength of the oral gift alleged to have been made by the appellant-plaintiff, though she never made any oral gift in her favour, it was wrongly alleged in that suit that the 1st respondent has been put in possession of the suit house in pursuance of the alleged fictitious gift. The formality of service of summons was gone through and an Advocate was got appointed for the appellant-plaintiff herein immediately and a consent written statement was got filed on her behalf suffering a consent decree on 20-12-1976. In order to show the action in reality, the 1st respondent also took steps for mutation of her name in the municipal registers in pursuance of the consent decree and attornment deeds of lease were executed by the respective lessees occupying the portions of the suit house. But the appellant was all along kept under the impression that the entire proceedings are only a make believe affair. Ithas also been alleged thatthe appellant-plaintiff continues to be the exclusive owner in possession of the suit house. She has never made any gift in favour of the 1st respondent. The plea as taken in the suit O. S. No. 137 of 1976 by the 1st respondents are untrue and fictitious and a consent decree has been obtained by undue influence and fraud and, therefore, the decree dated 20-12-1976 in O. S. No. 137 of 1976 being null and void deserves to be cancelled and the respondents are to be restrained from interfering with the possession of the appellant-plaintiff over the suit property or otherwise invade her rights over it in pursuance of the said decree.

( 5 ) THE 1st respondent through her written statement specifically denied the allegations made in the plaint She has pleaded that the appellant-plaintiffhad made an oral gift of the suit house in her favour at the time of her marriage only and had delivered thepossession of the same to her. She has accepted the gift and got her name mutated in the munic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document