CHEEPOORAPPANNAVARA MUNISAMI Vs. GANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants-1, 2, 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 358/1969 in the trial Court are the appellants herein As defendant No. 5 died, in the meanwhile, his legal representatives are brought on record. Plaintiffs are widow and sons of Narasimhaiah and the suit was for declaration of their title to the suit property measuring 18 acres and 18 guntas of Ottaragunta village in Bangarpet Taluk. The deceased Narasim- haiah and Munisami were full brothers. But, plaintiffs contended that Narasim- haiah was the absolute owner of this property end it was his self-acquired property. Narasimhaiah died about 7 years before the suit and Munisamappa his brother without any right, title or interest in the suit property had alienated the same and this came to knowledge of plaintiffs only from others and he had no right to sell the suit land. Because the defendants were interfering with their possession, the plaintiffs were compelled to file this for the aforesaid relief.

(2.) The present appellants filed a joint written statement disputing these allegations and contending that the suit property was a joint family property of both Muniswamappa and Narasimhaiah. They had considerable ancestral property yielding sufficient income and the suit property was acquired from the income of joint family agricultural lands. Munisamappa the undivided younger brother of Narasimhaiah became the manager of the family possessing and enjoying the property as such and even they had jointly mortgaged the land after 26-12-1960 in favour of S C.S. Limited, Hudkula. This was a Co-operative Society. For the family necessiiy, he had sold away 5 acres 12 guntas in favour of 1st defendant under a Registered Sale Deed dated 1-1-1964. On the same day, the same exlent of land was also sold the 2nd defendant. They were all for consideration. Since then, they have been in their possession. Despite this Munisamappa and the plaintiffs had not paid the debts due to the said Co operative Society of Hudkula and therefore, the property was brought for sale by public auction and the 2nd defendant with a view to avoid the sale of the property of which he had become the owner to the extent of 5 acres and 5 guntas, with the tacit consent and approval of the 1st defendant, purchased the property on 3-5-1969. The same was confirmed on 16-9-1969 and the sale certificate was issued on 8-10- 1969 The sale was held by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Therefore, they are estopped from denying the fact of sale or validity thereof. There were leases created in favour of 4th defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no interest or title in the suit property.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit accepting the contentions of the defendants, whereas the first Appellate Court, on an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.