R RAJAGOPAL REDDY DIED Vs. PADMINI CHANDRASEKARAN DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the 1st defendant in C. S. No. 110 of 1971 on the file of the Original Side of this Court, against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge dated 19. 2. 1979.

(2.) THE appellant/1st defendant died pending this appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 10. THE 1st respondent/ plaintiff died during the pendency of this appeal and one of the executors viz. , R. Krishnamurthi was brought on record as 8th respondent as the legal representative of the 1st respondent. THE 2nd defendant Venugopal reddy died pending the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 4 to 8. who are respondents 3 to 7 in this appeal. THE 3rd defendant/ Gandhi Nagar Co-operative House Construction Society Limited is the 2nd respondent in this appeal.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings put forth by the parties, the following issues were framed by this Court for trial: 1. Whether the 1st defendant, 2nd defendant, Srinivasalu reddy and others are members of a composite Hindu family; whether the suit property belongs to such a composite Hindu family and whether the hire purchase agreement has been taken in the name of the 2nd defendant benami for the benefit of the composite Hindu family" 2. Whether the partition deeds are true or void or sham and nominal" 3. Whether the plaintiff was a tenant of the suit property under the composite Hindu family" 4. Whether Srinivasalu Reddy was collecting the rents from the plaintiff for himself and on behalf of the 2nd defendant" 5. Whether the plaintiff had not accepted Srinivasalu reddy as the landlord" 6. Whether the attainment of tenancy with respect to the suit property to the 1st defendant was under a mistake of fact as alleged by the plaintiff" 7. Whether the plaintiff had by conduct accepted title in favour of the 1st defendant" Is she estopped from denying title of the 1st defendant" 8. Whether the alleged agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant is true" 9. Whether the sale of suit property by the 3rd defendant to the plaintiff is true and supported by consideration" 10. Whether the sale of the suit property by the 3rd defendant to the plaintiff was with notice of partition in the composite family and whether the plaintiff is not a bona fide purchaser for value with notice" 11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for" 12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration of title to the suit property" 13. Whether the 3rd defendant is a necessary or proper party to the suit" 14 To what relief or reliefs are the parties entitled"