GUNNAM PAPAMMA (DIED) AND OTHERS Vs. VALLURI KAMARAJU AND OTHERS
LAWS(APH)-1955-3-53
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 29,1955

Gunnam Papamma (Died) And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Valluri Kamaraju And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

APPALASURI V. KANNAMMA [REFERRED TO]
GAURI NATH V. GAYA KAUR [REFERRED TO]
YELUMALAI CHETTI V. NATESA ACHARI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

VISWANATHA SASTRI,J. - (1.)Though I came to a clear conclusion at the hearing of the appeal, I postponed delivery of the judgment at the request of the appellant's advocate who wanted sometime to settle the case, if possible. No settlement having been arrived at, I proceed to deliver my judgment.
(2.)The plaintiff is the appellant, and her claim in the appeal is confined to 2 acres and 89 cents of land out of 5 acres and 71 cents comprised in item 1 of A-1 schedule to the plaint, and mesne profits and costs disallowed by the Court below, the rest of the claim being given up. The following pedigree will serve to elucidate the facts.
(3.)The properties forming the subject-matter of the suit belonged to Muthareddi Sattemma, who died in 1903 leaving four daughters of whom Ramanamma, the youngest, was then unmarried. She sued her three married sisters for recovery of her deceased mother's estate as a preferential heir, she being a maiden. The suit O.S. 85 of 1916 was decreed in her favour after contest, and she enjoyed the properties of her mother till 1934 when she died. On the death of Ramanamma, her three sisters were entitled to succeed to the estate of their mother Sattemma, and two of them, Goli Achemma and Gunnam Papamma sued for recovery of the properties of their mother from persons in possession of the same, impleading their sister Ramamma as a defendant, she having declined to join as a co-plaintiff. This suit, O.S. 22 of 1934, ended in a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and their sister Ramamma and they remained in possession of different portions of their mother's estate without a formal partition. Goli Achemma died in 1947, and Ramamma in 1948. Thereafter, Gunnam Papamma brought the present suit for recovery of the properties which belonged to the estate of her mother, but which had been alienated by her sisters during their lifetime. The 10th defendant in the suit is the son of Goli Achemma, and he obtained a sale from his mother of 2 acres and 89 cents of land now in dispute under Exhibit B-10 dated 20th March, 1945, for Rs. 2,500. The plaintiff's case was that the sale by her sister to the 10th defendant was binding on her and was a nominal transaction unsupported by consideration. The plea of the 10th defendant in his written statement was that the sale was for a proper and legal necessity, and was therefore binding on the estate of Sattemma.
;


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