Both these matters are interconnected with each other and were directed to be heard together as parties in both the matters are common. Accordingly, I have heard Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant in the second appeal and for the petitioner in revision petition as well as Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent in both the matters.

2. The appellant in the second appeal and the 1st petitioner in revision petition is being referred to hereunder as ‘appellant’ for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts are as follows:

a) The appellant claims to be the owner of suit schedule house property which is a tiled house bearing M.No.44-12-48, situated at Paradesammapeta, Jagannadhapuram, Kakinada. She alleged that her husband died in 1961 and that she was blessed with four children; three daughters and one son. The said son appears as petitioner No.2 in C.R.P.No.6411 of 2004. The appellant alleges that she is an illiterate and not worldly wise and after the death of her husband, the management of all her affairs is being looked after by her brother, respondent herein in both the matters.

b) It is alleged that her brother owns a small house on the northern side of the plaint schedule property and the plaint schedule house was purchased by her husband on 18-01-1954 with her sthreedhana. She further alleged that she has borrowed monies for the purpose of management of their family and one such creditor one Singanamalli Suryanarayana, resorted to filing O.S.No.673 of 1973, on the basis of a mortgage, and after obtaining a decree brought this plaint schedule house for sale in E.P.No.65 of 1977. It is alleged that the respondent, brother of the appellant, engaged an advocate on behalf of the appellant and also obtained her signatures on many papers. To satisfy the said decree, the appellant alleges to have raised Rs.4000/- by selling her gold bangles and gave the same to the respondent for discharging the said debt.

c) It is further alleged that the appellant used to accompany the respondent to go to the Civil Court for the purpose of said litigation initiated by Singanamalli Suryanarayana and at that time she signed on several papers. She alleged that the office of the Registrar is also situated in the same Court compound and she later came to know that she was made to sign sale deed relating to suit house as if she has sold the suit house to the respondent herein under sale deed, dated 12-05-1978.

d) She alleges that she came to know the aforesaid fraud played by the respondent when she received a notice from the respondent, under Ex.A-1, dated 12-04-1985, alleging that the appellant is a tenant in possession on a rent of Rs.40/- per month and that she has committed willful default and asking her to vacate the premises. The appellant claims that she gave a reply, dated 24-04-1985, stating that the respondent, in a fraudulent manner got sale deed registered. Later, she obtained Ex.A-2, registration extract of the said disputed sale deed and she filed the present suit on 04-07-1985 as an indigent person. She has accordingly filed a suit seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed, Ex.A-2, is void and non-existent and no binding on her and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the appellant’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule house.

4. The respondent herein filed the written statement denying the plaint allegations alleging that the appellant herself borrowed money and was managing her affairs independently. It is also asserted that she herself engaged an advocate and defended herself in the said legal action taken by the creditor and only for the purpose of settling the said creditor, when she required the amount, she requested the respondent, as a brother, to purchase the plaint –A schedule house. The respondent claims that in the said situation, he agreed to purchase the said schedule house and paid the decreetal amount to the creditor