Decided on October 21,1954



- (1.) This is a plaintiffs second appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Narasaraopet, modifying the decree of the Court of the Distriict Munsif of Gurazala in a suit filed by the appellants for a declaration that the gift and the sale deeds executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property ae not binding on them and for recovery of possession.( The facts may be briefly stated. The plaintiffs are the brothers of one Venkatasubbaiah and were members of a joint Hindu family. There was a partition between them in the year 1932 and the plaint schedule property fell to the share of Venkatasubbaiah. During his lifetime, he adopted on Subbarao and died in 30.4.1945 intestate, leaving behind him his widow and his adopted son. Subbarao died in 1946 and his mother Seshamma, the second defendant, succeeded to his estate. On 1.5.1947 under Ex. B. 20 she made a gift of item 6 of the plaint schedule to the first defendant. On 26.8.1948 she executed Ex. B. 28 a sale, under which she conveyed items 1 to 5 to the first defendant. The plaintiffs, who are the reversioners, originally filed the suit for a declaration that the said transactions were not binding on them, but as the second defendant died pendente lite, the plaint was amended asking for possession.
(2.) The first defendant contended that Venkatasubbaiah himself sold item 6 to the secod defendant and that Subbarao had no title and did not die possessed of the same. In regard to the sale deed he pleaded that it was executed to discharge a mortgage executed by the second defendant, which was fully supported by consideration and binding on the estate.
(3.) The learned District Munsif held that the mortgage was not supported by consideration nor was executed for legal necessity. With regard to item 6 he, found that the sale deed executed by Venkatasubbaiah in favour of the second defendant was a normal document and that the gift by her to the first defendant did not, therefore, convey any little to him. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the sale deed executed by Venkatasubbaiah conveying item 6 to the second defendant was a real transaction supported by consideration. Though he found that the sale deedEx. B. 26 was not blinding on the reversioners, he held that the mortgage Ex. B.2 was supported by consideration and was blinding on the estate of Subbarao. In that view, he dismissed the suit in regard to item 6 but gave a decree to the plaintiffs on their paying to the first defendant a sum of Rs. 492.00, the amount due under the mortgage deed.;

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