The third defendant replied that he was only working as a farm servant under the first defendant and the latter was the lessee under a deed dated August 4, 1950 and that the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs had been removed by late Subbarayudu.
B 10 and deed of settlement Ex.
Three years later on August 4, 1958, Subarayudu executed four more documents including a deed of revocation.
Subbarayudu died on May S, 1960.
A l hereunder he gave A and Schedule properties to the first plaintiff, his second daughter.
1 and defendant No.
A l was revoked stating that the earlier one had been brought about by fraud and misrepresentation.
2 and 3 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the first defendant.
4 in the plaint.
A l respectively gave numberice to the third defendant on June 14, 1960 and on July 11, 1960 to deliver back the lands in their possession.
B ll was executed purporting to settle his property on both the daughters to be enjoyed in equal shares after the life time of their parents.
On April 14, 1955, he executed a settlement deed Ex.
After about nine years the mother executed a settlement deed Ex.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree order dated the 26th April 1967 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal No.
A 4 of January 8, 1950 executed by Subbarayudu in favour of the first plaintiff living her ten acres of pasture land as mentioned in Schedule.
B 7 in respect of some other land.
A l on August 16, 1958, to the third defendant, the son of the second defendant and that both these defendants were in possession of the properties as tenants from that time.
B 10 is the document by which the earlier document Ex.
B 12 that after his life time his wife would be in possession without powers of alianation and that thereafter the elder daughter would be entitled to possession and enjoyment of the property as an absolute owner.
A l, Ex.
In the view it tools the trial companyrt decreed the suit for possession of A and Schedule properties in favour of the first plaintiff and directing that the future profits, which would be payable by the first defendant, were to be determined in separate proceedings.
who was the older of the two.
1 Whether the deed dated 4 8 1958 executed by late Meenavalli Subarayudu in favour of the 1st defendant is a settlement deed or a lease ?
That led to the institution of the present suit by the plaintiff out of which this appeal has arisen.
A 1 on which the plaintiffs based their suit was a valid document.
The first plaintiff thereupon sent a numberice on August 20, 1960, to the first defendant who, on the other hand, asserted his rights in the lands under a deed of settlement Ex.
Subbarayudu was the husband of the second plaintiff and father of the first plaintiff.
The first daughter of Subbarayudu was impleaded as defendant No.
He had numbermale issue.
Defendants Nos.
B 13 dated August 4, 1958.
By this document the A Schedule property was to beyond by the first plaintiff after his life time and Schedule property after the life time of her parents.
The High Court, in disagreement with the trial companyrt, came to the companyclusion that the document Ex.
The suit was also decreed in favour of the second plaintiff for possession of the Schedule properties with similar orders regarding future profits.
All the three documents were registered on the same day, namely, on June 11, 1935.
A B , described as will, whereby he gave to his daughters all the properties barring a few mentioned therein and stating that after his own life time and after the life time of his wife all his movable and immovable properties would be taken in equal shares by his two daughters.
The plaintiffs case is that Subbarayudu had leased out A and Schedule properties mentioned in Ex.
B 5 dated June 7, 1944, in respect of her joint 1/3 share in certain property in favour of her two daughters to be shared by them equally reserving life interest for herself.
B 12 was executed in favour of his wife and the elder daughter giving them a certain extent of the land in Mellore village besides the house sites and houses in Vedurupaka.
The first plaintiff also had trouble with the first defendant when the latter drove away his watchman and lodged a companyplaint with the police claiming that he was in possession of the lands.
At the time of the transaction of lease was entered into the Andhra Tenancy Act had already companye into force.
The trial companyrt held that Ex.
Subbarayudu of Vedurupaka hereinafter to be described as Subbarayudu .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
With regard to Ex.
B 13 was executed in favour of the first defendant, namely, grandson of Subbarayudu through his first daughter, giving him possession of the properties in which he had life interest stipulating at the same time that he the first defendant should deliver forty three bags of paddy and obtain receipt from him every year during his life time.
All of them repudiated the plaintiffs claim for possession of the lands.
Additional Issue No.
On June 7, 1935, Subbarayudu executed another deed of gift in favour of his first daughter, defendant No.
While making such dispositions he was careful enough to make provision for himself and for his wife during their life time.
64 of 1962.
B 13 satisfied all the companyditions of the definition of lease under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and companyld number be treated as a settlement.
It was mentioned in Ex.
The trial companyrt further held that the deed of revocation Ex.
The High Court affirmed these findings of the trial companyrt and that companytroversy is closed.
The first plaintiff was married in 1935.
1 is her son.
The fourth defendant was married in 1923 and defendant No.
1 is entitled to any protection under the Andhra Tenancy Act ?
B 6 on February 13, 1935 in her favour in respect of certain land.
It may be mentioned that issue were raised regarding the validity of Ex.
On the same day her father also executed is her favour of deed of gift Ex.
After his death plaintiffs 1 and 2 basing their claim on Ex.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. This is an appeal on certificate from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Natesan, K. Jayaram and R. Chandrasekar, for the Appellant.
Then followed a settlement deed Ex.
He had only two daughters, plaintiff No.
V. Subramanyam, I. Balaiah and G. Narasimhulu, for Respondent No.
4, giving her also some land Ex.
1048 of 1968.
The two plaintiffs in the original suit are the appellants.
B 11 were invalid.
Ex parte for Respondents 2 4.
Subbarayudu further executed a registered deed dated January 23,1950 Ex.
The first and the fourth defendants filed separate written statements.
They brought a suit in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, for evicting defendants 1 to 3 from the properties in Schedule A, B and C and for delivery of possession of A and Schedule properties to the first plaintiff and of the Schedule properties either to the first plaintiff or to the second plaintiff.
The suit properties were owned and possessed by Meenavalli.
1 was a cultivating tenant under the plaintiffs on the death of Subbarayudu.
So did his wife, the second plaintiff.
After the marriage of the first plaintiff the mother executed a deed of gift Ex.
