K P SEKHAR BABU Vs. T DEVARAJULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th March, 1995 passed by the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi, in O.S. No: 320 of 1984. Defendants 24 to 26,39 and 40 are the appellants. The plaintiff was one and defendants 46. The appellants herein claim that they are purchasers from Defendant No. 5 and others. Defendant No. 5 is one Panguluru Ramachandraiah. It is not disputed by either party that the original owner of the land was one Smt. Tirumalachetty Narsamma. Smt. T.Narsamma had executed an unconditional and absolute permanent lease deed dated 21-12-1921 in favour of Panguluru Chennamma. Smt. Narsamma died on 21 -11 -1942 and there were reversioners, who were to claim the rights. Three reversioners excepting Seshadri Chetty had affirmed permanent lease deed dt.21-12-1921 executed by Narsamma in favour of P.Chennamma by registered deed dated 11-1-1943. While the plaintiff's claim is that Seshadri Chetty's rights merged with three other reversioners, the claim of defendants particularly Defendant No. 5, who filed the written statement, is otherwise. This suit was contested by only defendant No.5 who filed written statement and other defendants including the appellants did not file written statement.

(2.) After filing of the appeal, documents have been filed with a petition underOrder41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code to receive them as additional evidence. The plea of appellants as projected by their Counsel, Mr. P.S. Narayana, is that they are the bona fide purchasers for value and they believed that their vendor will pursue their rights as the appellants claim their rights through their vendor and if the vendor's rights are substantiated, automatically it will percolate to the appellants and hence they did not contest the case and they did not even file the written statement. The additional documents which are filed now are sale deeds and certified copies of the compromise decree in A.S. No. 1358 of 1981 and two compromise decrees between two sets of parties separately entered - one was recorded by order dated 8th June, 1983 in C.M.P. No.5704 of 1983 and the other on 2nd December, 1983 in C.M.P.No.12436 of 1983. In the first compromise, the parties are M/s.Panguluru Ramachandraiah, Panguluru Muralikrishnaiah Chetty, Panguluru Padmanabhan, Panguluru Sampoomamma, Sunku B. Visalaxmi on one side and Tirumalachetty Mohan Rangam and Tirumalachetty Suseelamma on the other. In the second compromise, the parties are M/s.Panguluru Ramachandraiah, Panguluru Muralikrishnaiah Chetty Panguluru Padmanabhan, Panguluru Sampoomamma and Sunku B.Visalaxmi on one side and B.Rama- murthy Rao and B. Krishna Murthy Rao on the other. It is claimed by the appellants herein that they had purchased the property, which is part of the suit schedule properties, from Defendant No.5 on his behalf and also as General Power of Attorney of other holders of the properties, which were allotted in the compromises referred to above and that these are public documents and even though the certified copy of the compromise decree recorded and ordered by this Court need not be proved, the sale deed have got to be proved and that a chance may be given to them.

(3.) After hearing both Counsel and having perused the judgment of the Court below as also the previous record which has been filed herein with the plea to receive them as additional evidence, we are of the considered view that the matter needs an opportunity of filing the written statement by the appellants and also adduction of evidence both oral and documentary. Thus, the documents, which have been filed along with the petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, be returned by the Registry to the appellants to be produced before the Court below.