RAMULU Vs. GOVUR VENKANNA DIED GOVUR NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is from the judgment of the District Judge, Nizamabad, given on 30/07/1960, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants was allowed and the plaintiffs suit dismissed. The short but important question which must necessarily be answered in this second appeal is whether S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) governs a case, where the last Hindu male-holder died before the commencement of the Act and where he was succeeded by a female having limited interest, she without becoming the absolute owner, died after the Act came into force. In order to find out a satisfactory answer to this question it is necessary to mention a few facts. the plaintiffs - appellant instituted a suit for a declaration that the alienation made by Sayamma, the 1st defendant, who lands under a sale deeds, dated 9-12-1955 is a sham and nominal transaction and that the plaintiffs are the nearest reversioners to Pedda Saidu, the last male-holder of the property and that they are not bound by the said alienation after the death of Sayamma, the alienor.

(2.) The defence raised was that Pedda Saidu died possessed of the suit property, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue for the declaration as they are not the nearest heirs of Pedda Saidu and that the alienation is not assailable because it was effected by Sayamma for legal necessity. It was also contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of S. 14 of the Act.

(3.) The trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit holding that the plaintiffs are the nearest heirs entitled to succeed to the estate of Pedda Saidu. The learned District Munsif also held on all the issues against the defendants. The defendants, therefore, preferred an appeal which was allowed, It was held by the District Judge that s. 8 of the Act governs the instant case and in the light of the schedule to S. 8 of the Acts plaintiffs are not superior heirs to Pedda Saidu and they are not, therefore, entitled, to sue. It is this view of the learned District Judge that is now assailed in this second appeal.