Decided on December 18,1969



Kuppuswami, J. - (1.)The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 70 of 1959 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Anantapur is the appellant. She is the daughter of one Venkatareddi who died on 28th March, 1933. Venkatareddi had two wives, Chinnamma and Papamma. Chinnamma died in 1948 and the plaintiff is her daughter. Papamma is the fifth defendant in the suit. After Venkatareddi's death, Chinnamma was in possession and management of the properties. She executed a sale deed in respect of 17 acres of wet land and acres 72.32 of dry land in favour of the first defendant who was then a minor, represented by his guardian, the second defendant, for a sum of Rs. 2,000 under a registered sale deed dated 21st April, 1939. On the same date the second defendant agreed to reconvey those properties for a sum of Rs. 1,200. The third and fourth defendants are the subsequent alienees from the 1st defendant.
(2.)The plaintiff stated that the junior widow of Venkatareddi, the fifth defendant had executed a surrender deed in her favour on 7th January, 1957 and thereupon the plaintiff became entitled to the properties of Venkatareddi as his daughter and sole reversioner. She contended that the sale deed executed by Chinnamma in 1939 was not valid as it was executed only by one of the widows of Venkatareddi, the other widow, the fifth defendant not having been a party. She also contended that it was not supported by consideration and was not for legal necessity. The defendants contended that during the lifetime of Venkatareddi, his junior wife the 5th defendant was leading an unchaste life. She lived separate from him and continued to be unchaste at the time of his death and therefore she had no right to inherit the properties of Venkatareddi., In any event, she was fully aware of the sale and consented to Chinnamma discharging the liabilities of her husband by executing a sale deed in favour of the first defendant. The defendants also contended the plaintiff's claim to succeed to the properties of her father was barred by time and she had no right to institute, the suit.
(3.)The Court below held that the sale was supported by consideration and was executed for legal necessity. It also held that the fifth defendant was unchaste at the time when the inheritance opened and she had consented to the alienation by the co-widow, Chinnamma. He held that the surrender by Papamma in favour of the plaintiff was not bona fide and therefore the plaintiff had no right to file the suit. In the result, he dismissed the suit, but without costs. The plaintiff has preferred the above appeal.

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