MANUKONDA PEDA HANUINANTHU Vs. SIKHAKOLLI GIRI MALLAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CMP No. 2283/82 is to add the petitioners herein as additional respondents in As No. 221/48. CMP No. 2284/82 is to set aside the order in A.S. 221/48. CMP No. 2285/82 is to grant relief under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure in A.S. 221/48 by directing that O.S.No. 90/46 on the file of the Sub-Court, Guntur, should be dismissed. CMP No, 2286/82 is to add the respondents herein as additional respondents in AS No. 221/48. This case had the chequered carrcer of Will over four decades. These petitions arise under the fol owing circumstances. One Ramachandra Charyulu died leaving a widow, Rangamma. Rangamma died in 1934. A declaratory suit, O.S. No.90/46, was filed by the plaintiffs, who claimed to have purchased 2/3 share of their vendors who became entitled as reversicners to the estate of Ramachandra Charyulu. The first defendant in this suit filed an independent suit, O.S.No. 39/45 in which he claimed that he was the sole reversioner and so, was entitled to the entire estate of the said Ramachandra Charyulu, but later he gave up this contention and was content to claim only 1/3 share admitting that there were two other sister's sons equally entitled to the estate along with him. He too sold his interest to some other defandants. So both the suits were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment. In fact the decree passed in O.S. No. 90/46 gave effect to the rights of the parties in both the suits.

(2.) The defence in the main was that the last male owner, i.e., Ramachandra Charyulu left a will bequeathing his absolute estate in favour of Rangamma, who in turn made gifts in favour of the 50th and 5lst, defendants and disposed of the other properties covered by the Will. The trial Court held that defendants 1 to 4 being sister's sons of the late Ramachandra Charyulu, are the next reversioners and that the original Will had not been established and so decreed in favour of plaintiffs and the persons claiming through them. As against this the 51st defendant, who is the grandson of Rangamma's brother one Krishnamacharyulu, preferred the appeal, A.S. No. 221/48 on the file of the Madras High Court. In essence, two points were raised before the Appellate Court viz., whether the defendants 1 to 4 are the reversioners and whether the Will was actually left by Ramachandracharyulu. With regard to the first point, the appellate Court held that the relationship of defendants 1 to 4 is not established and therefore neither the first defendant nor the purchasers from defendants 2 to 4 can have any title to the suit properties. Adverting to the second question, the appellate Court held :

(3.) According to the contesting defendants, Rangamma enjoyed the property got under the will and later gifed it under two different gift deeds one in favour of her brother's son, Aravalli Veeraraghavacharyulu, who is the father of the 51st defendant (Appellant in A.S.221/48) and the other in favour of her sister's son Chakiavartula Krishnamacharyulu, who is the husband of the 50th defendant. The pethoners herein are the purchasers of itenis 10 and 12 from the said 50th defendant under a r;gistered sale deed datt-d 19-8-1939 Whereas the other contesting defendants are claimants under a Will of Ramachandracharyulu, from whom the defendants are the purchasers, the 41st defendant and the adoptive father of the 42nd defendant are the rival purchasers of items 10 to 12 under the sale deed dated 18-10-1939 from the first defendant, who claims to be the reversioner and as stated earlier, had filed the suit O.S No. 39/45 wherein his right was restricted to 1/3 share.