MAKINENI VIRAYYA AND ORS. Vs. MADAMANCHI BAPAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question raised in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff -respondent is precluded by his individual conduct from claiming the properties in suit as the nearest reversionary heir of his maternal grandfather, one Makineni Buchayya, who was the last full owner. Both the Courts below have held that he is not and passed a decree for delivery of possession. The defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 6 have preferred this appeal challenging the correctness of that decision.

(2.) THE following table will show the relationship of the parties one to another :

(3.) THIS was followed by the execution, on the 8th January, 1904, of a maintenance deed (Ex. D -2) in favour of Lakshmi Devi by her daughter and grand -daughter, the donees under Ex. D -1. This deed also recited the arrangement said to have been made by the husband of Lakshmi Devi and the dhakal deed executed by the latter, and provided that Rs. 50 per annum should be paid by the donees in equal halves to Lakshmi Devi during her lifetime and that her obsequies should be duly performed after her death. The donees died in 1906 and, in 1907, the father of the plaintiff and the father of the first defendant acting as their respective guardians sold one of the items of Immovable property comprised in the dhakal deed. The rest of the properties appear to have been partitioned in equal shares and enjoyed separately by the plaintiff and first defendant. The plaintiff, who was a minor when all these transactions took place, attained majority in or about 1913. Thereafter by four sale deeds (Exs. D -6 to D -9) ranging from 1919 to 1928 the plaintiff sold all the Immovable properties allotted to his share at the partition aforesaid, and these deeds recited that the properties passed to his mother Subbamma under the dhakal deed executed by Lakshmi Devi and subsequently to him on his mother's death, and they purported to convey absolute title to the respective vendees in the properties sold. Lakshmi Devi died on the 21st May, 1930, and the plaintiff claiming to be the nearest reversionary heir of his maternal grandfather Buchayya brought the suit out of which this second appeal arises for recovery of the properties in the hands of the first defendant and his alienees who were impleaded as defendants 2 to 5. The fourth defendant died pending suit and is now represented by the sixth defendant.