MIDDI RAMAKRISHNA RAO Vs. MIDDI RANGAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam in A. S. No. 150 of 1949 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif of Gudivada in O. S. No. 272 of 1946 and remanding the suit for fresh disposal.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge has remanded the suit on the foot of the following observations : "The learned District Munsif has not discussed in detail the question of the alienations and the immunities of the alienees under Section 41, Transfer of Property Act. The primary question for decision is whether the alienees are transferees for consideration and whether they took reasonable care to ascertain whether the transferor had the power to transfer and acted in good faith. Seventh defendant gave no evidence personally. His agent has come into the box to speak on behalf of his principal. In making the purchase, the alienees presumably relied on the sale deed, Ex. B. 1 and the two khats Exs. B. 3 and B. 4, standing solely in the name of Sowbhagyarayudu but there is the circumstance that revenue registry and the patta are in the joint names of Sowbhagyarayudu and plaintiff. The question has to be considered whether the main alienees' failure to pursue that avenue of investigation amounts to a lack of reasonable care in ascertaining the title of the transferor. If an extract from the settlement register of a patta is tendered in evidence that may be received by the trial court, an opportunity may be given to both sides to adduce further oral and documentary evidence touching all questions under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The case is remanded therefore to the trial court for a disposal according to law in the light of the observations in the judgment and the findings given above. The costs of appeal will abide and follow the result of the fresh trial. Court fee paid on the appeal memorandum will be refunded to the appellants."

(3.) These high-sounding phrases in the ultimate analysis resolve themselves only into two things, namely, that undoubtedly there was evidence for the learned District Munsif to decide, but that it would be better to have more and satisfactory evidence before arriving at a conclusion, and that therefore both parties should be directed to look for such evidence and adduce it, if possible. There is no question of the learned District Munsif having shut out any evidence or not giving any opportunity to the parties to adduce such evidence.