PENNA VENKU REDDI Vs. KONDA PICHI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore confirming that of the District Munsif, Nellore, dismissing O.S. No. 80 of 1949. The appellants filed a suit for recovery of possession of the plaint A scheduled property and to directt he defendants to pay him Rs. 72 by way of rent for three years together with interest thereon and also for a direction to render an account of future rents or profits till the date of delivery of possession. The suit was based on a sale deed executed by one Bhima Sankarareddy in favour of the plaintiff on 1st June, 1945, for a consideration of Rs. 400. It is recited in this sale deed that the vendor acquired title thereto under Exhibit A-2 dated 29th May, 1945. In Exhibit A-2, there is a reference to the property having been purchased from one Mr. Balaramireddy.

(2.) The suit was contested mainly on the plea that Raghavareddy, the alienor under Exhibit A-2 had no title to the suit property and that it really belonged to the defendants thought it was purchased in the name of one Lakshmi Devamma in the year 1941. According to the defendants, the property was put in the name of the said Lakshmi Devamma having regard to the relationship that existed between them. As the plaintiff could not prove the title of Raghavareddy to the suit property the trial Court dismissed the suit. Though in its opinion the defendants have not make out their case that the property was originally purchased for their benefit in the name of Lakshmidevamma.

(3.) The lower appellate Court agreed with this conclusion, on appeal by the aggrieved plaintiff, with the result that the dismissal of the suit was confirmed by the appellate Court. This second appeal is brought by the plaintiff who is dissatisfied with this judgment. To show that the plaintiff has title to this property he seeks to have some documents admitted in this second appeal. It is not disputed that on the evidence on record the judgment of the Courts below are correct. Though the defendants have not established their case of benami the plaintiff will not be entitled to succeed as it is well-established that the plaintiff could succeed only on the strength of his own title and could not depend upon the weakness in the defence.