Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Kanala Veera Reddy and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Kanala Subba Reddy and Anr. – Respondents
Second Appeal Nos.781 of 2019 and 4 of 2020
Decided on : 17.10.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate
For the Respondents:S Dilip Jaya Ram, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Settlement deed/Will – Whether a document is a Settlement Deed or Will, Court has to examine the document as a whole and to look into substance thereof and also to know intention of parties – Form or nomenclature of instrument is not conclusive.
(2) A vested interest is not defeated by death of transferee before he obtains possession.
(3) Agreement to sell – Cancellation of sale-deed – When a valid transfer is brought into existence in accordance with law, it cannot be set at naught at instance of one of parties to it.

Headnote:
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 2(14) – Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 2 (h) – Settlement deed/Will – Whether a document is a Settlement Deed or Will, Court has to examine the document as a whole and to look into substance thereof and also to know intention of parties – Form or nomenclature of instrument is not conclusive – One has to comprehend meaning of document from document itself – Words used in document are to be given literal meaning – In the event of intrinsic and inconsistent words and language used in documents, intention would prevail over words used – Intention of parties has to be determined from attending circumstances leading to transaction – Every deed or document should be interpreted by considering implied terms – While considering nature of document has to be examined qua transfer of any interest in property in praesenti or after death of executants. (Para 31)
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 19 and 21 – Vested Interest and Contingent Interest – A vested interest is not defeated by death of transferee before he obtains possession – An interest can be said to be a vested interest where there is immediate right of present enjoyment or a present right for future enjoyment – An interest can be said to be contingent if right of enjoyment is made dependent upon some event which may or may not happen – On happening of event, a contingent interest becomes a vested interest. (Paras 49 and 50)
(C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 31 – Agreement to sell – Cancellation of sale-deed – When a valid transfer is brought into existence in accordance with law, it cannot be set at naught at instance of one of parties to it – If any document is required to be cancelled, only remedy is by way of a civil suit for cancellation under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act – No cancellation deed can be unilaterally executed or registered – Person intending to cancel gift deed/settlement deed has to invoke jurisdiction of competent Civil Court for cancellation of deed. (Para 54)
(D) Orders 21, Rules 97-101 Section 100 – Second appeal – High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC must confine to substantial question of law involved in appeal – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and interfere with concurrent findings of Court below where Courts below have exercised discretion judicially – Existence of substantial question of law is sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction – High Court cannot substitute its own opinion unless findings of Court are manifestly perverse and contrary to evidence on record. (Para 60)
Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT (COMMON)

Subba Reddy Satti, J.—

Second Appeal No.781 of 2019

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 defen