MYLAPURAM KRISHNA REDDI (DIED) AND OTHERS Vs. THOTTA YAGANTI REDDI AND ELEVEN OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Mylapuram Krishna Reddi (Died) And Others
Thotta Yaganti Reddi And Eleven Others
Click here to view full judgement.
CHANDRA REDDY,J. -
(1.) This appeal, which is brought by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 17 of 1948 against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, relates only to items 3 to 8, 17, 19, 20 and 25. He brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that he is the nearest reversioner of one Butchi Reddy who died possessed of the suit properties and for recovering possession thereof. Butchi Reddy the last male-holder died in or about the year 1878 issueless leaving behind him his widow, Chinnakka. She died in October, 1943. It is the plaintiff's case that during her lifetime, Chinnakka sold all the properties of her husband in collusion with her brothers and near relatives for no legal necessity, and that these alienations are not binding upon the reversioners.
(2.) For the purpose of this appeal, it is sufficient to say that the defendants concerned with the properties involved in this appeal, except the 5th defendant, contested the suit mainly on the ground that the last male-holder had no title to the lands in their possession. The 3rd defendant who is in possession of portions of items 3 to 6 remained ex parte throughout. The defence of the 5th defendant who claimed title to item 8 was that it was sold by the widow for discharging the debts incurred by her husband and that, in any event, the plaintiff and his father having consented to the sale effected in favour of his predecessor-in-title could not impeach that alienation.
(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit as against the other defendants on the ground that the last male-holder did not die possessed of the properties in question excepting item 8. As regards item 8 the finding is that the alienation could not be impeached by the plaintiff for the reason that the transaction in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the 5th defendant amounted to settlement of bona fide disputes, the plaintiff and his father also having had some benefit, thereunder. It was also found that there was no evidence that item 8 originally belonged to late Butchi Reddy. This view of the Subordinate Judge is assailed in this appeal by the aggrieved plaintiff.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.