R RAJAGOPAL REDDY Vs. PADMINI CHANDRASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Side Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge sitting in the Original Side in C.S. No. 110 of 1971. The First defendant in the Suit Originally preferred the Original Side Appeal. The First-Defendant died pending the Original Side Appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The plaintiff was the first-respondent. The second-defendant died pending the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 4 to 8 and they are respondents 3 to 7 herein. The third-defendant is the second respondent. We propose to refer to the parties as per their array in the suit, because it would be convenient for dealing with the questions.

(2.) The pleas of the plaintiff in support of her prayer for a declaration of title and for a permanent injunction could be broadly stated as follows: In 1950, the second-defendant entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the predecessor in interest of the third-defendant under which the second defendant agreed to purchase a building to be designed and built in the suit plot. In 1952, the plaintiff became a tenant of the suit property under the second defendant. But, subsequently he second-defendant orally agreed to sell the suitproperty to the plaintiff. Acting on the said oral agreement, the plaintiff from time to time effected valuable improvements to the suitproperty. Ultimately, there was a written agreement between the plaintiff and thesecond defendant and the second-defendant agreed to nominate the plaintiff authorising her to get the sale deed from the thirddefendant. This agreement was fulfilled and the third-defendant executed a registered sale deed in respect of the suit-property in favour of the plaintiff on 25-8-1967. Pursuant to the sale deed, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit-property as an absolute owner thereof. The first-defendant denied the title and ownership of the plaintiff and would put forth a title in himself projecting a partition amongst himself, the second-defendant, one Srinivasalu Reddy, examined as D.W.2 and other parties; and the first-defendant claimed title to the suit-property on the basis of the said partition, saying that the suit-property was allotted to his branch.

(3.) The first-defendant alone contested the title claimed by the plaintiff. The substance of the contest by the first-defendant is: Srinivasalu Reddy D.W.2, the second-defendant and the first-defendant and their respective branches constituted, what is known is the Hindu Law as a composite family recognised as valid among the Reddi Community. Though the Membership with the third-defendant stood in the name of the second-defendant, it was only the composite family that was entitled to a right over the suit-property and not the second-defendant in his individual capacity. On 29-9-1955, a registered partition was entered into amongst the members of the composite family and in the said partition the suit-property was allotted to the branch of Srinivasalu Reddy D.W.2 and the firstdefendant. Subsequently, there was a partiton in the branch of the first-defendant and Srinivasalu Reddy D.W.2 and in that partition the suit-property was allotted to the share of the first-defendant's branch on 16-5-1966. The rights under the hire-purchase agreement were held by the family assuch and as per the partitions, they had come to the first-defendant. The second-defendant was only a trustee for the other members of the family who are allotted the suit-property in the family partition. Even if the second-defendant had obtained a sale deed from the third'-defendant in his own name, he will have to hold it for the benefit of the first-defendant, who had been allotted the propertyin the family partition to which the second-defendant was a party. Similarly, the nominee of the second defendant, namely, the plaintiff should also hold it only in trust for the first-defendant. The plaintiff could not claim any title on the strength of the sale deed and she is not a bona fide purchaser for value.