JAVVADI VENKATA SATYANARAYANA Vs. PYBOYINA MANIKYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is referred by our learned brother Ramaujulu Naidu J., as it involves interpretation of S. 16 of the Transfer of property Act.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute but only its effect in law. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. One P. Muthaiah had a son Ganga Raju and executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit property conferring life estate on his son and after his death to the sons of Ganga Raju to be borne absolutely. Ganga Raju in his turn executed a relinquishment deed of his life estate got under Ex. A-3 in favour of his father Muthaiah on 31-8-1934 under Ex. A-4. Ganga Raju died in 1971 leaving behind three sons viz., rama Rao, lakshmanarao and Muthaiah. The first son Ramarao was born in the year 1942 the plaintiff happened to be the auction purchaser of th one-third share of Muthaiah under a sale certificate Ex. A-1 in a Court auction in execution of the decree. The plaintiff also purchased the share of lakshmanarao from his wife Raghavamma under a registered sale deed dt. 24-2-1972 as per Ex. A-2 and he filed the present suit for the recovery of this two- thirds share. The 1st defendant is the son of Muthaiah who resisted the suit. The other defendants are in possession of the property and the suit is contested by the 1st defendant contending that the relinquishment deed in favour of ganga Raju (sic) executed a relinquishment deed long before the birth of his sons and hence the gift in favour of the unborn sons has failed.

(3.) The courts below held that the settlement deed is true and valid but not a nominal one and ganga raju executed a relinquishment deed before the birth of sons to him and consequently the entire estate has gone out of the original donee and hence the gift in favour of urban children has failed and the present suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.