LexUNDAVILLI NAGARATHNAM & ANR. versus REDDI SATYANARAYANA MURTHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. / 983 UNDAVILLI NAGARATHNAM & ANR. v. REDDI SATYANARAYANA MURTHI & ORS. April I, 1976 [H. R. KHANNA AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] Transfer of Property Act 1882-Secs. 76 (a)(e), 105-Meaning of lease- Distinction between lease & settlement-Whether recital in a document conclu- give-Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act 1956 Secs. 2(/)(e) 16, 17- Meaning of Landlord and Tenant-Bar of ;urisdiction. One Mr. Subbarayudu had no male issue. He had his wife, plaintiff No. 2, and two daughters, one of whom is plaintiff No. 1 and another defendant No. 4. The defendant No. 1 is the son of defendant No. 4. Mr. SubbaraYudu and plaintiff No. 2 made various gifts in favour of their daughters. Shri Subbarayudu made a settlement in the year 1955 whereby he gave the properties in Sche- dules A and B to the first plaintiff. The properties were to be enjoyed by Subbarayudu and plaintiff No. 2 during their life time and after the death of Subbarayudu plainti:ffi No. 1 was to get property mentioned in Schedule A and after the death of plaintiff No. 2 she was to get property mentioned in Sche-' dule B. In 1958, Subbarayudu was alleged to have executed 4 documents including a Deed of Revocation revoking the settlement of 1955. In 1958 Subbarayudu entered into a document with defendant No. 1 giVing him posses- sion of the property in which he had life interest. The document provided that defendant No. 1 should deliver 43 bags of paddy every year to Subbarayudu and take a receipt. After the death of Subbarayudu plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 basing their claim on the settlement of 1955 called upon the defendant No. 1 to deiiver the possession of the property. The two issues which now survive are whether defendant No. 1 is entitled to any protection under the Andhra Tenancy Act and secondly whether the deed executed by Subbarayudu in favour of first defendant is a settlement deed or a lease. The Trial Court found that the settlement deed of 1955 was valid and that the subsequent deed of revocation was invalid. The High Court confirmed the said findings. The same are not under challenge. The Trial Court, however, held the document to be a settle- ment deed and not a lease and that. therefore, the first defendant was not entitled to any protection under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit of posses_sion in favour of the plaintiffs. A B· c E The High Court in appeal came to the conclusion that the document satis- l fied all the conditions of the definition of lease under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and could not b~ treated as settlement, The appellant-plaintiffs contended ( 1) That the High Court was wrong in holding the document to be· a lease and not a settlement. (2) Subbarayudu had re_served only life interest in Schedule A and B (j Properties and after he gifted the same to the plaintiff No. 2 he could not in , law imperil her right to possession of the same after his death by leasing out "\ the same property . . (3) In. any case it was .not. an act of pruden.t l!lanagement of the proper .. ttes in .which he. had only hfe .interest and the pnnc1ples applicable to a mort .. gagee m possession under section 76(a) and (e) of the Transfer of Property Act would. b~ applicable in the present case- and the lease would not be binding on the plambffs. H ( 4) Plaintiffs are not landlords within the meaning of Section ~ct and the defendant No. 1 is not a cultivating tenant under tiffs. 2(f) of the the plain- 984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] 3 s.c.R. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : 1. The document is described as Settlement Deed but that recital is not decisive of the real intent of the document. The document makes it clear that the possession was handed over to defendant No. 1; that the defen- dant No. 1 was to give 43 bags of paddy every year and it further mentioDs "without subjecting me to do any expense \.vhatsoever and obtaining proper receipts from me". The document does not disclose the disposition of the pro~ '.B perty by a grandfather to a grandson but a business-like instrument. [988C-E] :n E G 2. Subbarayudu was old and the Settlement Deed made it clear tltat during his life time he would enjoy the produce of the land. and therefore, he was keen to have at least some paddy from the land during his life time as a source of income and perhaps thought that his grandson- would faithfully carry
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.