MUMMAREDDI NAGI REDDI Vs. PITTI DURAIRAJA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against an appellate judgment of a division bench of the Madras High court dated the 12/01/1948, reversing in part, a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore passed in O.S.No. 3 of 1940.

(2.) TO appreciate the material facts of the case and ,the controversy that now centers between the parties, it would be convenient to refer to a short genealogy which is given below :-- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_109_AIR(SC)_1952Image1.jpg</IMG> <PG>110</PG>

(3.) AGAINST this decision, the plaintiffs took an appeal to the High court of Madras and the appeal was heard by a division bench consisting of Gentle C. J. and Satyanarayana Rao J. The learned Judges allowed the appeal in regard to the items of property mentioned above and reversed the decision of the trial Judge to that extent. It was held that the plaintiffs were the nearest reversionary heirs of Narayanappa and that the deed of release did not operate as a surrender of the widow's estate. The plaintiffs were given a decree for possession in respect of item 1 of the schedule properties as against defendants 2 and 3 on condition of their depositing into court the sum of Rs. 5,061.00 , and odd annas, that being the amount of debt legally binding on the estate which was discharged out of the sale proceeds of the transfer, and there was a further direction to pay interest upon this amount at the rate of six per cent per annum from certain specified dates up to the date of making the deposit. It may be noted here that the 1st defendant died after the trial court's decree and his interest passed by survivorship to defendants 2 and 3, who are his undivided sons. As against defendants 5 to 9, there was an unconditional decree for recovery of possession in respect of items 4 and 5 of schedule A. The plaintiffs were further given a decree for mesne profits, both past and future, commencing from the date of the widow's death down to the date of delivery of possession, and the amount of mesne profits was directed to be ascertained in a separate proceeding under Order 20, rule 12 the Code of Civil Procedure. It is against this decision that the present appeal has been preferred by defendants 2, 3 and 5 to 9. <PG>111</PG>