Point of law: When a relief of declaration along with the consequential relief is more comprehensive than what is contemplated in terms of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, even at the instance of the signattory to a registered document, suit of this nature is maintainable. It is not barred. Nor Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act prohibits such approach whoever be the plaintiff, directly or by implication. Therefore, frame of suit as such cannot be found fault with.

JUDGMENT :

The defendant is the appellant.

2. Sri Gogineni Raghavaiah, since deceased, was the plaintiff. He died during pendency of the first appeal. He is arrayed as the 1st respondent in the second appeal. The respondents 2 to 5 are his legal representatives. Smt. Sambrajyamma is the wife of Sri Gogineni Raghavaiah. She died on 11.04.1990.

3. The 3rd respondent and the appellant are the sons of Sri Gogineni Raghavaiah. The respondents 2, 4 and 5 are their daughters. The appellant is the last issue to Sri Raghavaiah and Smt.Sambrajyamma. Sri Gogineni Raghavaiah and his two brothers acquired an extent of Ac.2- 80 cents by inheritance from their father. Thereafter, by their exertions they could pool up sufficient landed property. In a partition among Sri Gogineni Raghavaiah and his brothers, he was allotted Ac.9-20 cents towards his share apart from a thatched house.

4. He got constructed the house later on and his eldest son, namely the 3rd respondent got married in the year 1975. There was a partition among Sri Gogineni Raghavaiah and his two sons, namely the 3rd respondent and the appellant evidenced by an unregistered instrument of partition in the nature of a partition list dated 05.07.1977. It was acted upon in which Ac.2-52 cents that included items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties apart from a four roomed tiled house at Ramachandra Puram, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District, were allotted to him among others.

5. During the lifetime of Sri Raghavaiah and Smt.Sambrajyamma, all their children got settled upon performance of their marriages. The marriage of the appellant was celebrated on 15.05.1981. The 4th respondent Smt.Chittemma along with her husband Sri Satyanarayana was living at Sriranga Puram, which is about 20 K.Ms., away from Ramachandrapuram, whereas the other sisters were living at Takkellapadu including his brother, who is about 3 K.Ms.away from Ramachandrapuram. At the instance of Smt. Sambrajyamma, who was suffering from cancer in or about 1977 or 1980, the 4th respondent Smt.Chittemma migrated to Ramachandrapuram and began to live with her parents. By then, the appellant was a minor and was living with them.

6. The contention of the deceased 1st respondent in the suit was that at the instance of his wife Smt.Sambrajyamma, he executed a registered settlement deed dated 19.02.1982 retaining life interest to her after his lifetime and vested remainder to the appellant to confer after lifetime of Smt. Sambrajyamma in respect of item No.3 of the plaint schedule properties. Thereafter, it was his contention that Smt. Sambrajyamma purchased Ac.1-05 cents of land in D.No.228/B of Takkellapadu under registered sale deed dated 25.07.1982.

7. It was also the contention of the deceased 1st respondent that since his wife Smt. Sambrajyamma expressed her desire to give a house site to the 4th respondent and Ac.1-00 of land purchased by her to the appellant. As per the arrangement in the family, the appellant had agreed to convey Ac.0-06 cents towards west of his land adjoining the village to the 3rd respondent as a house site and Smt.Sambrajyamma to execute a gift deed in his favour in respect of Ac.1-00.

8. It was the specific contention of the deceased 1st respondent in the suit that the appellant took him and his wife to office of the Sub Registrar, Guntur on 2 or 3 occasions and obtained his thumb impressions on the documents representing that they relate to the gift deeds stated above and that believing such representation of the appellant the deceased 1st respondent had put his thumb impressions wherever required honestly believing that it was for the purpose of these two gift deeds. It was also the contention of the deceased 1st respondent that the contents of the documents where his thumb impressions were obtained were not read over and explained to him and that he was always under the impression that these documents related to the aforestated transactions.

9. He specifically contended that he never intended to ex