NANDIGAM RAMARAO Vs. BURUGUPALLI SRIKRISHNAMURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. S. Nos. 65, 66 and 67 of 1957 are filed against the judgments and decrees in O. S. No. 72/53, O. S. No. 22/55 and 51/55 respectively on the file of the District Court, Eluru; C. M. A. No. 50/57 is filed against the order of the District Court. Eluru in I. A. No. 873/56 in I. P. No. 8/55 on its file.

(2.) The appellants are the same in all the appeals.The three suits and the application were tried together and the lower court gave a common judgment in all the four cases. The plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 in the three suits are the same. The 1st defendant each suit is a creditor of the 2nd defendant and obtained a decree against the 2nd defendant for recovery of certain sums of money. The second defendant was adludicated as an insolvent in I.A. No. 873/ 56 is the official Receiver and the 2nd defendant in each of the three suits is the 1st respondent in it.The plaintiffs in the three suits are the respondents 2to 5 in I.A. 873/ 53. O. S. 72/53 is the suit filed by the plaintiffs to declare that they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 3, 089- 9- 6 being the value of the crops in the plaint schedule lands realised by the Receiver appointed in O. S. No. 432/ 53 on the file of the Additional District Munsif s court Eluru, and to issue a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from drawing the said amount from court or from the Receiver. The two other suits, i.e, O. S. No. 22/55 and O.S.No.51/55 were filed by the plaintiffs to set aside the claim order passed in E.P.No. 558/ 54 on the file of the District munsif"s court, Rajahmundry and the claim order in I.A. 1642/53 in E. P. NO 366/53 IN O. S. No. 478/52 on the file of the District Munsif"s court Eluru disallowing their claim for the plaint schedule properties. I. A. 873/56 in I.P. 8/55 isthev application filed by the official Receiver, West Godavari for the annulment of the relinquishment deed dated 7-10-1952 which was registered on 1-12-1954 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiffs on the ground that it was brought into existence fraudulently with the object of delaying and defeating the rights of the general boby of the creditors of the 2nd defendant and to put the property of the insolvent beyond the reach of these creditors.The plaintiffs 1to 3 are brothers and the 4th plaintiff is their sister. The 2nd defendant is the husband of the fourth plaintiff. The plaintiffs case is that the suit property was purchased by them with their own money from one Sri M. V.subbarao and other of Eluru under the registered sale deed, Ex. B-2 dated 19-12-1950 in the name of the 2nd defendant and they have been in uninterrupted possession enjoyment of the same. They stated that the sale deed was taken in the name of the second defendant, who is the brother - in- law of plaintiffs 1to 3 and husband of the 4th plaintiff, benami for their benefit and that no portion of consideration for the sale passed from him. It is the further case of the plaintiffs in all the suits and in their counter to the official Receivers application, that this 2nd defendant executed an agreement in their favour on 14-9-1952 (Ex. A-9) agreement to execute a relinquishment deed in respect of the said properties and that in pursuance of the said agreement, he executed the relinquishment deed dated 7-10-1952 which is marked as Ex. A. 1 in these cases, that when the deed was presented for registration, the 2nd defendant denies execution of the same and that thereupon they filed a suit O. S. No. 41/53 on the file of the District Court, West Godavari, Eluru under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act for compromise subsequent to the filing of O.S. No. 72/53. They also stated that when the 2nd defendant and his alleged lessees attempted to trespass upon the land and disturb their possession, they filed O.S.132/52 and obtained a decree for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the property, that the 2nd defendant had no manner of right to the said property and that therefore the 1st defendant decree-holder in each of the suits had no right to proceed against the suit property or the crop thereon for realisation of the amounts due under their decrees.

(3.) The 1st defendant in each suit pleaded that the plaint schedule properties were purchased by the second defendant with his own money for his own benefit and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right and that the agreement and the relinquishment deed relied upon by the plaintiffs were fraudulently brought into existence with a view to defraud them and the other creditors of the 2nd defendant .He also pleaded that the 2nd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of their property.