DODDA SUBBA REDDI Vs. GUNTURU GOVINDA REDDI
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DODDA SUBBA REDDI
GUNTURU GOVINDA REDDI
Click here to view full judgement.
Rao, C.J. -
(1.)This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Umamaheswaram J. In Second Appeal No. 574 of 1950.
(2.)The facts relevant to the question raised may be briefly stated. The plaint schedule land originally belonged to one Bhavanam Venkatareddi, who died intestate in 1902. He left behind him his widow Konamma and five daughters. It appears that, after the death of Venkatareddi, his daughters and his widow got into possession of different extents of land belonging to him. On 14-10-1906 Konamma executed a document styled dakhal deed in favour of one of her daughters Subbamma, whereunder she purported to confer title on her in respect of the plaint schedule items.That dakhal deed, which is marked as Ex. B. 7 in the case, was attested by the plaintiff. It further shows that he was identifying witness also before the Registrar. The stamps affixed to the document disclose that they were purchased by him. It is also in evidence that he was staying with her at the time the document was executed. From the year 1906, Subbamma enjoyed the properties. On 3-4-1930, she made a gift of the same to her son to enable him to get married. The son, in his turn, gifted the said property to the defendant. It may, therefore, be accepted as an established fact that from 1906 upto the date when the suit was filed i.e., 1948, for a period of 42 years, this property was treated as the absolute property of Subbamma and her successor-in-interest.The plaintiff filed O. S. No. 230 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tenali, for recovering the said property on the ground that, after the death of the widow Konamma and her five daughters, he, being the nearest reversioner, succeeded to it as the heir of the last male holder. It is not necessary to particularise the various defences raised in the courts below as nothing turns upon them. The only question with which we are now concerned is whether on the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff is estopped from claiming title to the said property.
(3.)The learned District Munsif, and, on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, without giving any consideration to the facts aforesaid, disposed of the plea with observation that no question of estoppel arises in the case. When the matter came before our learned brother Umamaheswaram J. learned counsel for the respondent raised various pleas, one of them being that the decision of the Full Bench in Ramakotayya v. Viraraghavayya, ILR 52 Mad 556: (AIR 1929 Mad 502) was wrongly decided.By that time, as the Full Bench decision of this court in Subbarayudu v. The State, 1955 Andh WR 150: ((S) AIR 1955 Andhra 87) holding that the decisions of the Madras High Court delivered before 5-7-1954 would be binding on the Andhra High Court as they would be binding on the Madras High Court was not given, the learned Judge thought that it was open to him to ignore the decision of the Full Bench. The learned Judge held that the decision in ILR 52 Mad 556 : (AIR 1929 Mad 502) was not binding on him as it was wrongly decided.Further the learned Judge also held that, under the aforesaid document, the widow did not purport to convey any title to Subbamma and than the acts attributed to the plaintiff did not amount to any unequivocal and definite act of consent on his part. On those findings, he dismissed the appeal and presumably because the learned Judge refused to follow the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court, he gave leave to file an appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.