THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.896 OF 2011 Date:30.09.2011 Between: Doddi Satyanarayanamma and another .. Appellant And Amjuri Rama Naga Srinivas and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.896 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellants are the defendants 4 and 5 in the suit being O.S.No.243 of 1996 filed by the first respondent (hereafter, the plaintiff) on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for declaration and recovery of possession which was decreed on 13.10.2003. The appeal filed by the appellants herein and respondents 11 and 12 (defendants 6 and 7) being A.S.No.204 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, was dismissed on 06.08.2009, aggrieved by which, the present Second Appeal is filed. The brief fact of the matter by referring to the parties as they were arrayed in the suit is that. The plaintiff is the son of defendants 1 and 2. The second defendant’s maternal grand mother, Amjuri Appala Narasamma, executed a registered settlement deed dated 20.08.1951 giving life interest in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit schedule house with a condition that the vested remainder shall go to the male issues and if there are no male issues the settlee would become the absolute owner. The defendants 1 and 2 however sold the property under a registered sale deed dated 03.09.1956 to Nerella Atchayamma, mother of defendants 9 to 14. They in turn sold the property to the third defendant, who is none other than the mother of defendants 4 and 5. The plaintiff alleged that the sale by second defendant under registered sale deed dated 03.09.1956 in favour of Atchayamma itself is illegal and unauthorized; that the plaintiff was born in 1975; that he acquired vested remainder and therefore he sought for declaration and possession. Defendants 1 to 3, 6 and 10 to 14 remained ex parte. The statement of defendant No.5 was adopted by defendants 4, 7 and 8 whereas defendant No.9 filed separate written statement. Defendant No.5 (the second appellant herein) alleged that under the settlement deed dated 20.08.1951 executed by Appala Narasamma in favour of the second defendant, the latter acquired the absolute rights and therefore the sale by her in favour of Atchayamma and subsequent sales are valid. The trial Court framed six issues. The plaintiff examined three witnesses and marked Exs.A1 to A24. Defendant No.5 deposed as D.W.1, besides examining D.W.2, and marking Exs.B1 to B5. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the second defendant acquired only life interest under the settlement deed Ex.A1; she cannot alienate the property under Ex.A2; and that the sale deed dated 28.1.1963 marked as Ex.A3 under which the mother of defendants 4 and 5 purchased the suit schedule house is not binding on the plaintiff. The suit was accordingly decreed. The appellate Court agreed with the trial Court. The counsel for the appellants/defendants 4 and 5 would submit that under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property given by Appala Narasamma to the mother of the plaintiff becomes the absolute property in the hands of the second defendant and therefore sale under Exs.A1 and A3 cannot be invalidated. The submission cannot be accepted. Appala Narasamma did not give the property to the second defendant towards any pre-existing right of the latter. It was given under a settlement deed. The averments therein, as found by the Courts below, would clearly show that the property was given to second defendant with a restriction to enjoy the property giving vested remainder to her male issues. In appreciating the facts and the question of law, the Courts below have correctly approached the controversy and no interference is called for. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 30.09.2011 KH