IMPORTANT POINT
A registered owner's title cannot be defeated by fraudulent claims of death and misrepresentation by family members regarding property ownership.

JUDGMENT:

The supreme art is to achieve maximum result with minimum effort. A warring husband, if happens to kill his wife, stands disqualified from inheriting the property of his wife[Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956]. However, an ingenious husband treads the path of killing his live wife on paper and convinces others about his inheritance of her estate and embarked upon alienating the properties of his living wife. The present case depicts the unrighteous positions taken up by the husband and display of ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone. There is clear use of sophistry for misleading by means of specious fallacies exerting to convince on the touch stone of pleadings and burden of proof, though in truth there remained nothing to decide in that respect.

2. This appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) impugns the judgment dated 30.01.2016 of learned IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada in O.S.No.33 of 2010. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are appellants herein. The sole plaintiff in the suit is respondent No.1. Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 are arrayed as respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in this appeal.

3. Sri P.Raghu Ram, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Sri Ram, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri G.Rama Gopal, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted arguments.

4. Prefatory facts:

i) The property in dispute is described in plaint schedule by way of item Nos.1 to 4 and they situate in Elakolanu Village of Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

ii) The marriage between Sri N.Solman Raju and Smt. Veera Lakshmi was solemnized on 09.05.1985. They were blessed with two daughters, namely, Kum. N.Mutya Maduri and Kum. Bhagya Suma. The wife Smt. N.Veera Lakshmi filed O.S.No.33 of 2010 showing her husband as defendant No.1 and her daughters as defendant No.2 and defendant No.3. It is that husband and two daughters who are the appellants herein.

iii) Ex.A.1 is registration extract of registered sale deed dated 27.12.1990. All the items of plaint schedule properties are covered by this document. The plaintiff Smt. N.Veera Lakshmi is the registered owner of the plaint schedule properties as per Ex.A.1. Ex.A.2 is registration extract of registered gift deed dated 07.04.2007 and Ex.A.3 is another registration extract of another gift deed dated 07.04.2007. These two documents were executed by Sri N.Solman Raju. Under Ex.A.2 he donated half of the property covered by Ex.A.1 in favour of his first daughter. Under EX.A.3 he donated the remaining half of the property covered by Ex.A.1 in favour of his another daughter/defendant No.3.

iv) Ex.A.4 is registration extract of possessory agreement for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2007 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4. Ex.A.5 is another registration extract of another possessory agreement for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2007 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.5.

v) Ex.A.6 is registration extract of sale deed dated 27.07.2009 which was executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.6. Ex.A.7 is registration extract of sale deed dated 27.07.2009 executed by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant No.6. By virtue of these documents, the entire plaint schedule properties had come to be sold out in favour of defendant No.6.

vi) Smt. N.Veera Lakshmi filed O.S.No.33 of 2010 whereunder she questioned all the above referred transactions and in her plaint she sought the following prayer:

“The plaintiff therefore prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree

1) Declaring the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property as absolute owner.

2) Consequently grant vacant possession of the plaint schedule property by evicting the defendants there from.

3) Cancel the registered gift deed dt: 07.04.2007 document No.1009 of 2007 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants as null and void in pursuance of the same all the subsequent documents.