A document executed with the intention of making provision for a dependent is a settlement deed as defined under S. 2 (24) of the Indian Stamp Act.

K. MADHAVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in O. S. 15 of 1966 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali has preferred this appeal. The plaintiff, who is the daughter of one Kantam Raju Seetharamaiah, seeks a declaration that the settlement deed dated 5-8-1957 executed by her father in favour of the 2nd defendant, her step-mother, and the sale deed dated 22-6-1959 in respect of A and A-1 schedule properties are not binding on her in so far as they relate to her 1/3rd and alternatively her 1/4th share therein. She also seeks a decree for partition of plaint A Schedule immovable properties into four equal shares and for partition of plaint A and A-1 immovable properties; and for partition of B, C, and D Schedule properties, which comprise an insurance policy, movable properties and outstandings, and allotment of a 1/3rd and alternatively a 1/4th share in the said properties to her.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of Seetharamaiah by his first wife, Venkayamma. The 1st defendant, who is the second wife, leased out the properties to the 4th defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that A schedule properties belonged to Seetharamaiah, while A-1, B, C and D schedule properties were acquired by him from the funds which came into his hands from one Kameswaramma for the benefit of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. Kameswaramma was plaintiffs grandmothers sister-in-law. She was widowed early in life. She fostered plaintiffs mother. As the plaintiffs mother died in 1945, Kameswaramma having no one else put her funds in the hands of plaintiffs father for the benefit of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, her father after the death of her mother, married the 1st defendant, who is no other than his own sisters daughter and nearly 20 years younger than himself. It is alleged that the 1st defendant, exercising undue influence over plaintiffs father, made him execute a deed dated 5-8-1957 settling A and A-1 Schedule properties in her favour. It is also alleged that item 2 of A-1 schedule property was purchased from out of the funds placed in the hands of her father by Kameswaramma, but the sale deed in respect of that item (Ex. B-18) was taken in the name of the 1st defendant. That property, in fact, belongs to the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. As the plaintiffs father died on 15-2-1962, she claims for a declaration and for partition of the immovable and movable properties as mentioned above.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 remained Ex Parte, while defendants 1 and 4 resisted the suit inter alia denying that Kameswaramma had placed any funds in the hands of the plaintiffs father and that from any of these properties were purchased from such funds for the benefit of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. The existence of some of the items of C. Schedule properties was denied and some of the items therein were claimed to be jewels given to the 1st defendant by her husband at the time of her marriage and, therefore, exclusively belonging to her. It was further pleaded that the settlement deed executed on 5-8-1957 was valid and binding and was not void on any of the grounds stated by the plaintiff. The 1st defendant also averred that plaintiffs father had executed a will on 25-5-1961 (Ex. B-13) in a sound and disposing state of mind and conveyed the properties mentioned therein, which covers all other items of plaint schedule properties.

( 5 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge held that no funds were entrusted by Kameswaramma to Seetharamaiah for the benefit of his daughters by his first wife, Venkayamma; and A-1 schedule properties were not purchased with any such funds; that the premia for the B Schedule - Insurancy Policy - were not paid from out of any such monies entrusted; and that the plaint C Schedule movables also were not acquired with any such funds. It was also found that the settlement deed was not vitiated on account of undue influence coercion or fraud; the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document