DODDA SUBBAREDDI Vs. SUNTURU GOVINDAREDDI
LAWS(APH)-1954-9-1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 10,1954

DODDA SUBBAREDDI Appellant
VERSUS
SUNTURU GOVINDAREDDI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Defendant is the appellant. The respondent herein filked O. S. No. 230 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsifs Court of Tenali for recovery of possessioin of the suit property on the ground that it belonged to his maternal-grand-father. Bhavanam Venkata Reddy and after the death of his last daughter Bhusamma, he suceeded to the property as the next reversioner.
(2.) The defendant contended that the suit property was gifted to Subbamma, one of the daughters of Venkata Reddy by her mother, Konamma, as per the oral directions of her father, Venkata Reddy, lthat there is a family arrangement under which Subbammas absolute rights in the suit properties were recognised and that, in any even, the plaintiff who brought about the attested the Dakhal deed dated 14-10-1906 Ex. B-7 executed by Konamma in favour of Subbamma was estopped from challenging the validity of the Dakhal deed. The defendant claimed as the donee, under Exhibit B-8 from Bakki Reddy who claimed title from Subbamma under a settlement deed executed by her on 3-4-1930 and makred as Exhibit B-9.
(3.) Both the courts below concurently found that the defendant did not establish the family arrangement as well as the oral gift set up by them. On the question of estoppel, the District Munsif held in paragraph 22 of his judgment that it was impossible to hold that the plaintiff was estopped from questioning Subbammas absolute title to the suit land. He also observed that "the defendants learned Pleader too has not gone to the length of contending that the bar of estopel can be raised against the plaintiff based on his connection with the original of Ex. B-7 alone."Though no specific ground of appeal was raised by the defnednat in regard to estoppel in the Memorandum of Appeal, filed before the Subordinate Judge of Tenail, the Subordinate Judge raised the question of estoppel as the 4th point for consideration and disposed it of in paragraph 8 in a single sentence that he was not able to see how plaintiff was estopped on account of his being a party attestor in the gift deed Exhibit B-7.;


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