Kanala Veera Reddy vs Kanala Subba Reddy

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(AP) 738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Kanala Veera Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
Kanala Subba Reddy – Respondent
Second Appeal Nos.781 of 2019 and 4 of 2020
Decided On : 17-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Raja Reddy Koneti

Headnote:
SETTLEMENT DEED - WILL - DISTINCTION - TRANSFER OF INTEREST IN PRAESENTI OR AFTER THE DEATH OF EXECUTANT - INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS - SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW - SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT IN SECOND APPEAL.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants filed a second appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, which reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction. The plaintiffs claimed absolute ownership of the plaint schedule property based on a settlement deed executed by the deceased sole plaintiff in their favor. The defendants contended that the deceased sole plaintiff had executed two registered settlement deeds in their favor, creating vested remainder in their favor, and that they had acted upon those deeds.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were answered holding that Exs.B-16 and B-17 are Settlement Deeds. Settlor settled interest in favor of settlee on the date of execution of document i.e right in presenti was created in favor of settlee. Without any pleading and evidence Lower Appellate Court, misreading the contents of document and ignoring settled principles concluded that Exs.B-16 and B-17 are Wills but not Settlement Deeds. Thus, in view of substantial questions of law S.A.No.781 of 2019 deserves to be allowed.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court below committed a grave error in making out a case for the plaintiffs and holding that the settlement deeds in question are Will deeds though there is no foundation in the pleadings in the above regard? And, if so, whether the decree and judgment impugned are vitiated and are liable to be set aside? 2. Whether the appreciation of facts, law and evidence (both oral and documentary) by the Court below is perverse? 3. Whether the Court below committed a grave error in making out a case, which is not pleaded by the plaintiffs, and placing reliance on the evidence, which is unsupported by pleadings, contrary to the settled principle that any amount of evidence without a pleading shall not be looked into? And, if so, whether the decree and judgment, which are impugned, are liable to be set aside?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the documents Exs.B-16 and B-17 are Settlement Deeds, but not Wills. The Court relied on the following factors: (a) The documents were styled as settlement deeds and were registered. (b) The settlor reserved life interest onto himself and his wife and vested remainder to settlee. (c) The settlor restricted his right to alienate the schedule properties under Exs.B-16 and B-17. (d) There was no right reserved to cancel the documents during his lifetime by settlor. 2. The Court held that the lower appellate court erred in construing Exs.B-16 and B-17 as Wills, but not Settlement deeds. The Court held that this finding was contrary to the recitals in Exs.B-16 and B-17 as also the pleadings and evidence on record.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the second appeal and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court, which had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The High Court also allowed the second appeal filed by the defendants in the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court, which had decreed the suit in favor of the defendants.

JUDGMENT :

The defendants are the appellants in above second appeal. The above second appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2019 in A.S.No.183 of 2014 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Guntur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2014 in O.S.No.68 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this judgment are referred to as per their array in O.S.No.68 of 2003.

3. Suit O.S.No.68 of 2003 was filed initially by deceased sole plaintiff Kanala Subba Reddy, died pending suit and his wife was brought on record as 2nd plaintiff in I.A.No.449 of 2006 dated 02.11.2007. The relief sought for in the suit is to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of plaint schedule property as per the settlement deed dated 12.07.2000 executed by late Kanala Appireddy in favour of 1st plaintiff and the said settlement deed is binding on the 1st defendant and for consequential permanent injunction etc.

4. (a) The averments in the plaint, in brief, are that, 1st plaintiff, Basivireddy and Appireddy are sons of Parasurama Reddy. Basivireddy migrated family to Krishjamrajuvaripalem in Prakasam District and has been living there. Appireddy and his wife are living at Dandamudi with 1st plaintiff and his family. The 1st defendant is the grandson of Basivireddy. Appireddy married Punnamma and they had no issues. Punnamma pre-deceased Appireddy and plaintiffs’ family looked after Appireddy. In or about 1996, 1st defendant came to Dandamudi and lived for some time with plaintiffs’ family. Appireddy died on 18.06.2001 by executing a registered settlement deed dated 12.07.2000 in favour of 1st plaintiff reserving life interest for him and vested remainder to 1st plaintiff.

(b) It was further stated that 1st defendant obtained settlement deed dated 24.03.1999 by playing fraud and misrepresentation and it was never acted upon. Appireddy himself revoked the settlement deed dated 24.03.1999 and it is an incomplete one.

(c) After execution of settlement deed in favour of 1st plaintiff, late Appireddy delivered title deeds to 1st plaintiff along with settlement deed. When 1st defendant attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of 1st plaintiff, he filed suit O.S.No.156 of 2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur against the 1st defendant for injunction and later at the instance of elders, it was withdrawn. Since the 1st defendant started questioning right and possession of 1st plaintiff, he was constrained to file suit for the relief stated supra.

5. (a) 1st defendant filed written statement and contended inter alia that Appireddy and Punnamma had no issues. 1st plaintiff had two sons and two daughters. Late Appireddy and his wife sought the help of 1st defendant, who is no other than grandson of elder brother Basivireddy; that 1st defendant was fostered by them; that out of love and affection towards 1st defendant, two registered settlement deeds dated 16.07.1997 and 24.03.1999 were executed in respect of plaint schedule property creating vested remainder in favour of 1st defendant and after life time of donor and his wife as regards item No.1 of plaint schedule property; that vested remainder to 1st defendant as regards item Nos.2 to 4 of plaint schedule property and the bequeaths were accepted by 1st defendant.

(b) It was further pleaded that 1st defendant opted to marry the girl of his native village to the dislike of late Appireddy and the marriage was solemnized on 16.05.2000; that disputes arose between 1st defendant and late Appireddy and 1st defendant was made to leave the house of Appireddy at Dandamudi village; that taking advantage, 1st plaintiff prevailed upon Appireddy and got executed registered cancellation deeds dated 12.07.2000 and got executed registered settlement deed dated 12.07.2000 in favour of 1st plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property. 1st defendant in fact issued notice dated 24.07.2000 to late Appireddy, 1st