A plaintiff must establish title to claim possession; failure to prove the deed's validity led to dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

This Appeal Suit preferred U/s.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’), by the plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2008 delivered in O.S.No.528 of 2006 on the file of I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arraigned before the learned Trial Court.

3. The suit was instituted for delivery of possession.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit, vide impugned judgment dated 30.07.2008.

PLEADINGS:

5. The plaintiff asserts ownership of the scheduled property. The plaintiff’s mother, Smt. Vunnam Audilakshmamma, was the original owner of the property. She executed a registered settlement deed on November 8, 2005, bequeathing the property to the plaintiff. On October 14, 1995, she permitted the defendant to stay in the scheduled property on humanitarian grounds. The plaintiff issued a notice on August 17, 2006, demanding that the defendant vacate the scheduled property and deliver vacant possession by August 31, 2006. The defendant received the said notice and failed to deliver the possession.

6. The defendant, the wife of Sri V. Dasaradharami Reddy, alleges that the plaintiff, Sri Vunnam Dasaradharami Reddy, and another individual are brothers. She made an agreement to settle the plaintiff’s property claims in favour of the defendant but demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry. The defendant’s parents presented cash and gold as payment, but the plaintiff and other family members caused conflicts between the defendant and her husband.

On 24.06.2002, Smt.V.Audilakshmamma executed a registered settlement deed in favour of Smt.V.Umamaheswari, bequeathing the suit property and delivering possession to her, against the defendant’s promise. However, Smt.V.Audilakshmamma has no title to the property and cannot execute a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff without cancelling the deed executed in favour of her daughter. This settlement deed will not convey any title to the plaintiff.

Smt.V.Audilakshmamma filed a suit in O.S. 639/1997 for permanent injunction against the defendant, which was dismissed. She appealed in A.S.14/2002, which was also dismissed. Smt.V. Audilakshmamma, her daughter, and other family members beat the defendant and tried to dispossess her from the suit house. The defendant presented a report to the police, which led to the filing of a case before the II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

ISSUES:

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession of plaint schedule property from the defendant?

2. Whether the Court fee paid is insufficient?

3. To what relief?

EVIDENCE:

8. During the trial of the suit, the plaintiff was examined as P.W-1, while the defendant and her mother were examined as D.Ws-1 and 2. Four documents were marked for the plaintiff as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4. Ex.A-1 is the registered settlement deed dated 08.11.2005. Ex.A-2 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 17.08.2006. Ex.A-3 is the postal receipt, and Ex.A-4 is the postal acknowledgement. The defendant filed two documents as Exs.B-1 and B-2, which are the voters’ list of Nellore Assembly Constituency for the year 1993 and the Nellore Municipality for the year 1986, as documentary evidence.

09. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence presented by both parties, the Trial Court refused the plaintiff’s request for a decree of possession. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree because, Smt.V.Audilakshmamma, has no authority to execute the settlement deed. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.

10. Heard Sri M.Ravindra, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M.Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE COUNSEL:

11. The plaintiff’s counsel argued that