JANDHYALA SREERAMA SARMA ALIAS SUBBARAO Vs. NIMMAGADDA KRISHNAVENAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Our learned brother Satyanarayana Rao, J., directed that this appeal should be posted before a Bench as it involves what he considered to be an important question of law.

(2.) The suit was filed by the appellants who are the sons of late Jandhyala Satyanarayana to set aside certain alienations made by him as not binding on them. The trial Court found that the alienations are not binding on the plaintiffs but dismissed their suit as barred by time since it was filed more than 3 years after the 1st plaintiff the eldest brother, had attained majority. The learned advocate for the appellants raises the contention that even if the 1st plaintiff is barred, the other plaintiffs who are still minors are not barred. Our learned brother thought that the question deserved examination by a Bench.

(3.) Before we go into the question of law thus raised, we may at the outset dispose of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in regard to the lower Court's finding of fact that the suit was not filed within 3 years of the 1st plaintiff's attainment of majority. The plaint case is that that 1st plaintiff was born on 9th September, 1926. In proof of this fact, reliance was placed on Exhibit A-6, a certified copy of an extract from the birth register relating to the birth of the 1st plaintiff and Exhibit A-2 which is a portion of a rough note-book alleged to contain the 1st plaintiff's horoscope.