1966 (12) TMI 77 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff is the permanently kept concubine of late Anjana Reddi and if so, is she entitled to maintenance and at what rate?
2. Whether Anjana Reddi died in a state of jointness with his father and son?
3. Whether there was a settlement of plaintiff's maintenance as pleaded in para 5 of the plaint?
4. Whether the relinquishment deed executed by Anjana Reddy was a sham and nominal transaction?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the plaintiff is the permanently kept concubine of late Anjana Reddi and if so, is she entitled to maintenance and at what rate?

The learned Subordinate Judge found against the plaintiff on this issue, holding that the plaintiff was not the permanently kept concubine or "Avaruddha stri" of Anjana Reddi. Consequently, he did not decide the rate of maintenance. On appeal, the District Judge disagreed with the lower court and held that the plaintiff was indeed an "Avaruddha stri" of Anjana Reddy and would be entitled to maintenance from his estate after his death. However, due to the finding on the relinquishment deed (Issue 4), the plaintiff was not awarded maintenance from the properties in question.

2. Whether Anjana Reddi died in a state of jointness with his father and son?

The learned Subordinate Judge found against the plaintiff on this issue as well. The District Judge did not specifically address this issue in his formulated points for decision but implicitly agreed with the lower court's finding by not awarding maintenance based on the relinquishment deed's validity.

3. Whether there was a settlement of plaintiff's maintenance as pleaded in para 5 of the plaint?

The learned Subordinate Judge, after careful discussion of evidence, found against the plaintiff on this additional issue. The District Judge did not frame or mention a point regarding this alleged settlement in his judgment. The plaintiff's counsel argued that this omission constituted an error of law under Section 100 (1) (c) of the Civil Procedure Code. However, the High Court held that there was no evidence to show that this point was urged and argued in the first appellate court. The presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the court performed its duty was not rebutted, leading to the conclusion that the District Judge did not fail in his duty by not addressing this point.

4. Whether the relinquishment deed executed by Anjana Reddy was a sham and nominal transaction?

Both the lower courts found that the relinquishment deed was not a sham and nominal transaction. The District Judge, after a careful discussion of the relevant evidence, upheld the validity of the relinquishment deed, concluding that Anjana Reddy had no share in the joint family property, which ultimately came into the hands of the first defendant. Consequently, the plaintiff could not claim maintenance from these properties.

Conclusion:

The High Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, particularly the District Judge's conclusions on all three points framed. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed with costs, and the court-fee due to the Government on the memorandum of the second appeal was to be paid by the appellant. The High Court found no substantial error or defect in the procedure that would warrant interference under Section 100 (1) (c) of the Civil Procedure Code.