VENKATA SATYANARAYANA Vs. MANIKYAM
LAWS(APH)-1982-11-38
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 02,1982

JAVVADI VENKATA SATYANARAYANA Appellant
VERSUS
PYBOYINA MANIKYAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ramanujulu Naidu, J. - (1.) "In view of the pursutnce of the question verified in the second appeal, and not covered by any authority' I am of opinion that the Second Appeal should be posted before a Division Bench, the papers may be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate order." Pursuant to the order of Reference by ramanujulu Naidu. J. dt. 18-12-79 this Second Appeal came op for final hearing on 2-11-1982 before a Division Bench of this court, consirting of P.A. Choudary J. and Kodandaramayya, J. and the court delivered the following. JUDGMENT
(2.) This appeal is referred by our learned brother Ramanujulu Naidu, J., as it involves interpretation of Sec. 16 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(3.) The facts are not in dispute but only iti effect in Law. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. One P, Muthiah had a son Ganga Raju and executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit property conferring life estate on his son and after his death to the sons of Ganga Raju to be born abso'utely. Ganga Raju in his turn executed a' relinquishment deed of his life estate got under Ex. A-3 in favour of his father Muthaiah on 31-8-1934 under Ex. A-4. Ganga Raju died in 1971 leaving behind three sons viz , Rama Rao, Lakshmanarao and Muthaiah. The first son Ramarao was born in the year 1942. The plaintiff happened to be ths auction purchaser of the one-third share of Mutbaiah under a sale certificate Ex. A-1 in a court auction in execution of the decree. The plaitiff also purchased the share of Lakshmanrao from bis wife Raghavamma under a registered sale deed dated 24-2-1972 as per Ex. A-2 and he filed the present sent for the recovery of this two thirds share. The 1 st defendant is the son of Muthaiah who resisted the suit. The other defendants are in possession of the property andjthe suit is contested by the 1 st defendant contending that the relinquishment deed in favour of Ganga Raju, executed a relinqaishment deed long before the birth of his sons and hence the gift in favour of the unborn sons has failed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.