VENKATA REDDY Vs. KOLANDARAREDDIGARI SANKARA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge of Chittoor confirming that of of District Munsif in O. S. No. 569 of 1947, a suit filed by the respondent for a declaration of the titile of the joint family, of which he is the maanger, to the suit properties and for possession.( The plaintiffs casemay be breifly stated. His paternal uncle Chengalraya Reddy purchased the suit properties in the name of his wife Sayamma under a duly registered sale deed dated 27-6-1938 for a sum of Rs.300.00. After he purcahsed, as he settled down in Sumatra Island for the purpose of trade, he entrusted the management of the suit lands to the defendants, who are the brothers and mother of Sayamma. Sayamma and Chengalraya Reddy died in the years 1945 and 1946, childles. At the time of his death, Chengalraya Reddy had two brothers, Veeraswami Reddy and Munuswamy Reddil. Munuswamy Reddi died in 1946 leaving him surviving his only son, the plaintiff. On those allegations, the plaintiff claimed that he and the membersof his joint family including Veeraswami Reddy have become solely entitled to the suit properties. The suit was filed for possession as defendants refused to deliver possession.

(2.) Defendants 1 to 3 claimed that the suit property was purcahsed benami in the name of Sayamma for their familky. They stated that they have been in possession in their own right. Even if Sayamma was held to the owner, they pleaded that they would be her heris in preference to the plaintiff.

(3.) The learned District Munsif held, on the evidence, that the sale deed dated 27-6-1938 in favour of Sayamma was not benami for defendants 1 to 3. He did not think it was necessary to consider whether the said sale deed was benami for her husband. Chengalraya reddy, as in his view, it did not make any difference in the matter of succession. He found that there was no evidence that the marriage was in Asura form and on that finding, gave a decree to the plaintiff and his family as prayed for. On appeal, the learned District Judge accepted the findings of the trail Court. When it was contended before him that the suit was filed by the plaintiff, as manager of his family and that no decree could be given for, the entire property as Veeraswami Reddy, the owner of the other hair, was not a member of the plaintiffs family, the learned Judge held that the property washeld in co-ownership by the plaintiffs family for which the pllaintiff was the manager and Veeraswami Reddy was a co-owner and, therefore, the suit by one of the co-owners against a trespasser would lie. In the result, he confirmed the decree. Hence the appeal.