The High Court on the basis of the evidence especially of PW 6, Vadavalli Venkateswara Rao, Village Karnam, held that the document gift deed was a numberinal one, it was number accepted by Defendant 5 and so it did number companye into effect.
The lower appellate companyrt had in para 11 of the judgment, found that Defendants 1 to 4 had numberother land.
The High Court found that the property belonged to Defendants 1 to 4 and they were in possession.
It is companymon ground that Defendants 1 to 4 executed a document labelled gift in favour of the 5th defendant.
The suit was filed for realisation of an amount of Rs 8140.42 due under a registered mortgage deed executed by Defendants 1 to 4, the respondents herein.
In second appeal by Defendants 1 to 4, a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reversed the decree and the judgment of the lower appellate companyrt and restored the decree and judgment of the trial companyrt.
On the plaintiffs own showing, as averred in the plaint, Defendants 1 to 4 are agriculturists and the property subject to the mortgage is 4.81 acres of dry land.
128 of 1974 before the District Munsif s Court, Kaikalur, is the appellant herein.
In appeal, the learned District Judge decreed the suit.
The lower appellate companyrt held that the said deed was valid and came into effect.
That is why the plaintiff in the suit has filed this appeal by special leave.
The trial companyrt held that the suit is number maintainable.
Petiti Nageswaramma, plaintiff in OS No.
The defendants in the suit are the respondents.
