The court held that a valid settlement deed cannot be unilaterally revoked, and the will presented by the defendants was not proven, affirming the plaintiffs' title to the property.

Judgment:

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment, dated 24.11.2010 in A.S.No.172 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada, allowed in part by its judgment and decree, dated 09.08.2007 in O.S.No.154 of 2000, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada (for short „trial Court‟).

2. The appellant herein is the 1st defendant before the trial Court, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs before the trial Court and 4th respondent herein is the 3rd defendant before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.154 of 2000, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, with a prayer to declare their title to the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession of the same after ejecting the defendants and their men therefrom and to grant past and future profits and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above said suit filed A.S.No.172 of 2007, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada. The learned IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada, allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful 1st defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.154 of 2000, is as follows:

(i) The plaint schedule property is a Mangalore tiled house situated in Ashoknagar, Kakinada, originally belonged to Smt. Bhupati Nagaratnamma, wife of Sriramachandra Varma of Kakinada. She worked as Teacher in Municipal Corporation School, Kakinada where the 1st plaintiff is co-teacher. Nagaratnamma was neglected by her relatives. She was closed to the plaintiffs who gave moral support to her and she developed affection towards the family of the plaintiffs. Out of love and affection, she voluntarily executed a registered settlement deed, dated 20.07.1979 for the plaint schedule property reserving her life interest for her and vested interest in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for their life and the remainder interest in favour of 3rd plaintiff. Nagaratnamma died on 30.10.1994. By the date of her death, Jammula Veera Sai Babu and Peddi Venkateswara Rao were in possession of the plaint schedule property as tenants on monthly rent of Rs.500/-. After her death, plaintiffs demanded the tenants to pay the rents. They postponed on one pretext or the other. The plaintiffs got issued a registered notice on 28.02.1996 terminating their tenancy and demanded them to deliver vacant possession of the property and to pay the rents with interest. The tenants gave litigious reply on 29.03.1996 in collusion with 1st defendant. Though they admitted the tenancy, they contended that the rent is Rs.400/- per month and they obtained the lease from 1st defendant and further stated that the settlement deed in favour of plaintiffs were cancelled on 21.01.1981 by Nagaratnamma and she executed a registered Will, dated 10.07.1992 in favour of 1st defendant. The alleged documents are not valid under law and not binding on the plaintiffs. She has no right to cancel the settlement deed. The alleged Will was brought up by 1st defendant by coercion. The plaintiffs are not parties to the alleged cancellation of settlement deed by Nagaratnamma and it is unilateral one. She did not execute the alleged Will, dated 10.07.1997 and she has no such right to execute it.

(ii) The 1st defendant forcibly evicted the tenants referred above and inducted the 2nd defendant on monthly rent of Rs.600/-. He has no such right. Thus, the defendants 1 and 2 are trespassers.