VULUGUNDAM LAKSHMI NARASU BHAYAMMA Vs. AKULA RAMANA RAO AND GUTTIKONDA VENKATESWARLU
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VULUGUNDAM LAKSHMI NARASU BHAYAMMA
AKULA RAMANA RAO AND GUTTIKONDA VENKATESWARLU
Referred Judgements :-
MANICKAM PILLAI V. ANDINARAYAMA PILLAI
SURAPURAJU V. VENKATARATNAM
CHANDULAL KANHAYALAL V. NAGINDAS BAPUBHAI
DAW PO V. U.P.HMVIN
ATTAR CHAND KAPUR V. CHANDULAL
SABITRIV.F. A. SAVI
Click here to view full 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(a) that O.S. No. 548/44 be withdrawn;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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.