( 1 ) THE only question that requires determination in this second appeal is whether the suit filed by the respondent herein is barred by limitation. The facts necessary to appreciate the arguments may briefly be stated. The respondent herein D. Venkanna brought a suit O. S. No. 335 of 1956 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Bapatla for a declaration of the settlement deed dated 21st November, 1940 executed by him in favour of the defendant, a minor represented by his father as guardian as sham and nominal transaction. That was executed to avoid maintenance claimed by his first wife. It was stated that the plaintiff s wife one Rattamma had deserted him while he was ill in 1940, and was contemplating to bring a suit for maintenance. The plaintiff was residing with the father of the defendant along with his mother, and as a result of living together developed a sort of confidence in the father of the defendant and was taking his advice in all matters from time to time. On the advice of the father of the defendant to safeguard his property from the clutches of his wife, and to defeat her claim, the plaintiff executed a settlement deed in favour of the defandant who was then

Click Here to Read the rest of this document