THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.418 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, „C.P.C.’), is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the decree and Judgment dated 24.03.2014 in O.S. No.15 of 2005 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.C.s & S.T.s (P.O.A.) Act-cum-X Additional District Judge& Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for short, ’the trial court’).

2. Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S. No.15 of 2005 seeking cancellation of registered gift deed dated 28.04.2003 (document No.2515 of 2003) and for consequent delivery of possession of „B‟ schedule building with costs.

3. Referring to the parties hereinafter as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate potential confusion and better comprehend the case. 4. The plaint ’A’ schedule property is shown as a Registered Gift Deed dated 28.04.2003 allegedly executed by Plaintiff in favour of Defendant. The Plaintiff filed the suit, seeking relief of cancelling the plaint ’A’ schedule document as void and consequential relief for delivering the plaint ’B’ schedule property to the Plaintiff. It is the Plaintiff’s case that she purchased plaint ’B’ schedule property in her name, and the Plaintiff was subjected to fear of arrest by Police and perpetrated fraud, undue influence and coercion on her and obtained plaint ’A’ schedule document relating to plaint ’B’ schedule property.

5. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

(a) The Plaintiff, the Defendant’s second wife, married him on October 20, 1985. The Defendant’s first wife, Padmavathi (who is also the Plaintiff’s sister), had passed away, leaving two children. To protect their interests, the Plaintiff married the Defendant. The Defendant had fostered a child named Harikumar since 1998 due to not having male heirs. The Defendant is addicted to bad vices and spends his time out of the house. The Plaintiff actively participated in the education and performances of the marriages of two girl children and foster Son Hari Kumar.

(b) The Plaintiff’s father retained the “Pasupukumkuma” money meant for Padmavathi (his elder daughter), multiplied it through different sources, and gave it to the Plaintiff to purchase a house. The Plaintiff purchased the plaint „B‟ schedule property on March 30, 1996. From then on, Defendant harassed Plaintiff for minor domestic issues, leading to Plaintiff and her daughter being forced out of the house in 2000. They began living in Vijayawada with the help of the Plaintiff’s father, while the Defendant stayed in the plaint „B‟ schedule house. Defendant, by exercising fraud, undue influence and coercion on Plaintiff, obtained plaint ’A’ schedule property under gift deed dated 28.04.2003. Defendant compelled Plaintiff in November 2004 for a divorce by mutual consent and, subsequently, began proposing the sale of plaint ’B’ schedule property, whereas Plaintiff had entertained a doubt. On 28.01.2005, after obtaining a certified copy of the document, Plaintiff learned of the fraud played by Defendant.

6. Defendant filed a written statement (subsequently amended), refuted the plaint averments and admitted his 2nd marriage with the Plaintiff and fostering Harikumar and denied the Plaintiff‟s purchase of plaint ’B’ schedule property and contended that Plaintiff engaging an illicit relationship with Sri Harikumar, who had divorced his wife Kanyakumari by mutual consent. According to the Defendant, the elders advised the Plaintiff to stay in Vijayawada, but she continued her relationship with Sriharikumar by sending her daughter to Defendant; the elders advised both parties to file a divorce petition for mutual consent, resulting in Lok Adalat Award vide O.P. No.238 of 2004 on 16.09.2004. Defendant sustained a loss of Rs.7,00,000/- due to Plaintiff’s immoral activities; Defendan