VULUGUNDAM LAKSHMI NARASU BHAYAMMA Vs. AKULA RAMANA RAO AND GUTTIKONDA VENKATESWARLU
LAWS(APH)-1955-10-34
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 07,1955

VULUGUNDAM LAKSHMI NARASU BHAYAMMA Appellant
VERSUS
AKULA RAMANA RAO AND GUTTIKONDA VENKATESWARLU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MANICKAM PILLAI V. ANDINARAYAMA PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
SURAPURAJU V. VENKATARATNAM [REFERRED TO]
CHANDULAL KANHAYALAL V. NAGINDAS BAPUBHAI [FOLLOWED ON]
DAW PO V. U.P.HMVIN [REFERRED TO]
ATTAR CHAND KAPUR V. CHANDULAL [REFERRED TO]
SABITRIV.F. A. SAVI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These two appeals arising out of O.S. No. 222 of 1950 and O.S. No. 35 of 1951 respectively raise common questions of law and can be disposed of in one judgment/though the plaintiffs are different and defendants are the same. These suits were filed to set aside the orders passed under Order 21, rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the District Munsif of Tenali.
(2.)The material facts are few and simple. The first defendant who is the same in both the suits filed O.S. No. 670 of 1944 against her husband for maintenance while her husband brought an action O.S. No. 548 of 1944 for restitution of conjugal rights. In O.S. No. 670 of 1944 the plaintiff's mother-in-law was also impleaded as a defendant, as subsequent to the institution of the suit, the plaintiff's husband conveyed all his properties to his mother under Exhibit A-10, dated 5th July, 1944. The present first defendant claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 180 per annum and also asked for a charge. Ultimately, both the suits were compromised, the terms of which may be set out : (a) that O.S. No. 548/44 be withdrawn; (i) that O.S. No. 670/44 do stand decreed in respect of a life interest in one acre of the schedule attached to plaint therein free from claim of Vulugundam Radhabhayamma by reason of sale deed in her favour, dated 5th July, 1944, by plaintiff herein, in lieu of money claim and in full satisfaction of plaint claim; (c) that question of costs be left for determination by Court; (d) that plaintiff do execute a proper deed in favour of defendant as per clause (b) within one month, V. Lakshmibhayamma being minor, by next friend and guardian, Chillariga Narasimha rao Subsequent to the decree the mother-in-law, who was the second defendant in O.S. No. 670 of 1944, sold under Exhibit A-3, dated 14th October, 1946, to the father of the respondents 1 and 2 acre1-0 of what she had purchased under Exhibit A-10. She transferred the remaining portion to the first respondent in S.A. No. 2463 of 1952 sometime later. On 15th June, 1948, the first judgment-debtor alienated the 53 cents which he had kept for himself to the first respondent in S.A. No. 2463, of 1952 under Exhibit A-11, dated i5th June, 1948. In execution of the decree, the first defendant attached the properties sold under Exhibits A-3 and A-i i by her mother-in-law and husband respectively. The vendee intervened with claim- petitions under Order 21, rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, but these objections were disallowed by the executing Court. To set aside these orders the two suits giving rise to these appeals were filed in the District Munsif's Court, Tenali.
(3.)The basis of the claim in both the suits was that the first defendant did not acquire a right to payment of any money by way of annual maintenance but had merely acquired a right to obtain a conveyance in respect of acre 1-0 of land to be enjoyed by her for her life in lieu of the maintenance and money claim and therefore the decree was not capable of being executed as it was one for payment of money and that no charge was created by the compromise decree and that the, charge could not be enforced on any portion of the property described in the schedules attached to the plaints. The trial Court decreed the suits upholding the contentions of the plaintiffs. The appeals filed by the first defendant were not successful. The aggrieved first defendant has preferred these two second appeals.
;


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