KONDAVALI BULLI VENKANNA Vs. ALIA PATTABHI RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S. 55 of 1966. Sub Court, Eluru are the appellants. They are the brother's sons of one Narasayya.who died on 19th August, 1908 leaving behind him his widow, Narsamma his son Doralah having pre-deceased him. Narasamma died shortly thereafter, but before her death, she executed a settlement in favour of Doraiah's widow Krishnamma by which she gave property to the extent of about Ac. 4-3 cents for her maintenance to be enjoyed by Krishnamma during her life. After the death of Krishnamma on 13-1-1966 the plaintiffs herein claiming to be the nearest reversoners of the last male-owner, Narasaya, filed the suit for a declaration of title and for possession of the plaint schedule lands with past profits for the year 1965-66 and for future profits. The first defendant to the suit was the brother of Krishanmma and the second defendant was the deceased brother's son. Defendants 5 to 7 were later added as legal representatives of the first defendant who died during the pendency of the suit, The third defendant was a purohit who daimed that Krishnamma had executed a gift d/14-9-1956 in respect of 30 cents of land out of item I. The fourth defendant was the lessee cultivating items 1 and 2. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a common written statement contending that Narasayya was not the last male-holder of Doraiah, as Narasayya surrendered his share in the family property to his only son, Doraiah. Krishnamma Inherited the suit property as the widow of Doralah and enjoyed the same till 1956. On the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act she became the absolute owner. She executed a gift in respect of 30 cents in favour of the 3rd defendant and bequeathed the rest of the property under a will dt. 10-4-1967 in favour of a choultry constituting the first and second defendant's father as trustees. After the death of the second defendant's father, she executed another will d/2-8-1963 appointing the second defendant as the trustee. They denied the truth and validity of the maintenance deed said to have been executed by Narasayya in favour of Krishnamma. It was contended that the deed was void as Krishnamma was a minor on that date, It was further, contended that even If it was true and valid, Krishnamma became absolutely entitled to the same under sec. 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act. They also contended that the plaintiffs were not the nearest reversioners. Finally, they contended that as the reversion to the estate of Narasaiah opened in 1908 on the death of his widow, Narsamma, the suit was clearly barred by time. As the eighth defendant, claimed that she w also an heir to the estate of Narasaiah as she was his brother Seshaiah's daughter she was also brought on record as eighth defendant.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs and the eighth defendant were the nearest reversioners and each was entitled to a 1/3rd share in the property. He also held that Dorayya died during the life time of deceased Narsaiah and on the death of Narsaiah the properties devolved on Narasamma and that she executed the maintenance deed Ex. A-1 d/ 16-12-1908 as alleged by the plaintiffs. He however held that the maintenance deed was not binding upon the reversioners as alienation was in respect of the entire property and not merely in respect of a reasonable portion thereof. He negatived the contention of the defendants that Krishnamma acquired absolute rights under the Hindu Succession Act. In view of the finding chat the alienation by the widow of Narasaiah was not binding on the reverstoners, he held that the suit ought to have been filed within 12 years from the date of death of Narasamma in 1908 and therefore, the suit which was filed in 1966 is clearly barred by rime. He also held that the gift in favour of the purohlt was not binding on the rever- sioners. In the result, he dismissed the plalntfffs suit with costs.

(3.) The plaintiffs preferred A.S No. 224/70 to this court. In his judgment d/6th October, 1972 our learned brother Sambaslva Rao, J., observed that the Issue, namely whether the suit is in time was framed as an additional Issue suo motu on 30-3-1970 on the date when the judgment was delivered and the suit was held to be barred by time as thp court below was of the view that the entire estate. had been alienated by the widow. As the Issue was framed very late, the parties did not have any opportunity to lead necessary evidence, namely, whether rhe property that was alienated under Fx.A-1 comprised the entire property of Narasalah. He also directed the court below to consider and decide whether the plaintiffs were the nearest heirs and reverstoners to the estate of Narasaiah on the death of Narasamma when the reversion opened.