- (1.)This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the Madras High Court. The appellants were defendants in a suit brought by the respondents for possession of certain properties which originally belonged to one Subbarayudu. The case of the respondents was that Subbarayudu executed a will dated September 15, 1885. Under that will the property passed on his death to his wife with life interest and after her death absolutely to his daughter Krishnavenamma who was in enjoyment thereof till her death in 1933. The daughter executed a will on March 24, 1933, in favour of her step-son Nagaraju who came into possession of the property on her death soon after. Nagaraju in his turn executed a will on August 16 1933, by which he gave life interest to his wife who was the first plaintiff (now the first respondent before us) and thereafter the property was bequeathed absolutely to his daughters. The second respondent is the tenant of the first respondent. Nagaraju died soon after executing the will and the case of the first respondent was that she came into possession of the property on his death and was in enjoyment thereof till she was forcibly ejected in 1943 by the appellants who claimed to he the purchasers of the property from Seetaramayya and Ramakotayya who in their turn claimed to be the reversioners of Subbarayndu. Consequently, the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed in June 1944, for possession and mesne profits.
(2.)The suit was resisted by the appellants, and their case was that they had purchased the property from the reversioners of Subbarayudu in 1942. It was further contended on their behalf that on the death of Krishnavenamma the reversioners came into possession of the property through the tenants who had been in possession from before under a lease granted to them by Krishnavenamma. These tenants remained in possession till the sale-deed in favour of the appellants and attorned to the appellants thereafter. Later the two tenants surrendered possession to the appellants who thus came into actual possession of the property in suit. The appellants also contended that the so-called will executed by Subbarayudu was a forgery and the first respondent had no title to the property.
(3.)On these pleadings, the main point that arose for decision was whether the first respondent had title to the property and was in possession of it till she was dispossessed in 1943. Further the title set up by the appellants was also gone into and their claim as to possession came up for consideration. The trial court found that the will said to have been executed by Subbarayudu was not proved. In consequence of this finding, it came to the conclusion that the title of the first respondents which depended upon the proof of this will was not a legal title. Further it found that it was not established that Seetaramayya an Ramakotayya were the next reversioners to the estate of Subbarayudu. The result of these findings was that no title was found in either party. These findings have been upheld by the Subordinate Judge and also by the High Court in second appeal and, therefore, it must now be accepted that both the parties have no title to the property in suit.