GOLI RAMASWAMI Vs. NARLA JAGANNADHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There appeals arise out of two suits, O.S. Nos. 129 and 130 of 1951 respectively on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali. Both the suits were filed for possession and future mesne profits. Though the plaintiffs are different, the defendants are the same in both the suits, the main facts being common to both. The two suits were tried together with the consent of parties and the evidence was recorded in O.S. No. 129 of 1951 as per the joint memo., dated 10th January, 1955. The plaintiffs are residents of Perala and Chirala, two adjoining villages, while the defendants belong to a place called Pallekona. The properties in dispute are situated in Konetipuram. According to the plaintiffs, the two sale deeds, marked as Exhibits A-26 and A-27 were executed in favour of the two plaintiffs, the extent of the land covered by each of the sale deeds being i acre 92 cents and 676 square links, and the consideration recited in each being Rs. 7,000. The negotiation for these sales were initiated by one Perumallu, who is examined as P.W. 11, at the request of the two plaintiffs.

(2.) The properties in dispute were originally acquired by the mother of the first defendant, whose son is the 2nd defendant. The first defendant lost his father while he was a lad of two years. At that time, the first defendant and his father seem to have constituted members of a Hindu joint family along with the father's brothers. At a subsequent partition, an extent of Ac. 2-57 cents fell to the share of the first defendant's family. The mother of the first defendant happened to be the only daughter of one Kaja Baliah. This Baliah left his properties by a will to his widow i Lakshmamma. Lakshmamma gifted all her properties to her maternal grandson, the first defendant, in the year 1920. The mother of the first defendant assumed management of these properties as he was a minor and she purchased Ac. 3-80 cents which is the subject-matter of these two suits, with the income realised therefrom on 14th January, 1932. She also acquired another plot of land in her own name out of the income of those properties.

(3.) Immediately after the first defendant attained majority, he seems to have created some trouble to his mother in the enjoyment of these properties. This obliged her to file a suit, O.S. No. 176 of 1941 in the Court of the District Munsif, Repalle,, Claiming these properties as hers. That plaint is marked as Exhibit A-18. The suit was resisted by the first defendant on the plea that all the properties, the sale deeds for which s tood in the name of his mother, were purchased with the income of the properties conveyed to him by his maternal grandmother, the income of the ancestral properties being very small and a large family of theirs, consisting of himself, his mother and two sisters, having to be maintained therefrom. Besides contesting that suit, the first defendant raised another action as a counterblast for accounts against his mother. By a common judgment, which is marked as Exhibit A-21, dated 13th September, 1943, the mother's suit was decreed and that of the first defendant dismissed. On appeal, this was reversed and judgment entered for the first defendant in both the suits, with the result that the mother's suit was dismissed and that of the first defendant decreed. The mother took a second appeal to the High Court of Madras in S.A. No. 674 of 1945 but before the mother could be heard, they entered into a compromise, with the term that the suit properties should be allotted to the son, the first defendant, and the other item (referred to above) to his mother. This was on 22nd August, 1946. Within a few days thereafter, the first defendant's wife sent a notice to him on behalf of his minor son, obviously at his instance, impeaching the validity and the propriety of the compromise and asserting that all the properties constituted joint family properties of the father, the first defendant, and his son, the 2nd defendant, and that the compromise was entered into with a view to defeat the just rights of the son. The father did not send any reply to it. However, no further action was taken in regard there 10 nor was any attempt made to deprive the mother of the property that was assigned io her under the compromise. The parties continued to enjoy the properties allotted !o each of them under the compromise.