RAMANI RAMACHANDRAIAH Vs. RAMANI JAGADESHWARIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Suit No. 44/1 of 1957, on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate, East and North, District Hyderabad (hereafter referred to for convenience as the learned Munsiff), the sole plaintiff sued for possession against five defendants. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. The plaintiff filed A.S. No. 78 of 1959 before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad. The latter allowed the appeal and passed an order setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff and remanded the suit for trial on other issues. Thereupon defendants 1 to 3 filed the present appeal impleading three respondents. The first respondent is the plaintiff. The second respondent is the fourth defendant and the third respondent is the fifth defendant. During the pendency of this appeal, the first defendant died and his leg?l representatives were not impleaded. In the suit, the learned Munsiff framed fifteen issues. He heard arguments on Issues 12 to 15 as preliminary issues. Those issues run as follows :- " (12) Whether the decree of the Secunderabad Court, dated 18th March, 1938, being a foreign decree was competent to affect the property situated in Hyderabad State ? (13) If not, what is the effect of such decree in this suit? (14) Whether the present suit is tenable ? (15) Whether the alleged compromise decree in spite of being unregistered is admissible in evidence and what is its effect ? The learned Munsiff held on Issue No. 14 as follows :-

(2.) The learned Munsiff decided Issue No. 12 in favour of the defendants observing that' this question is based on evidence and the defendant has to prove this fact as alleged by him.' He did not purport to give any finding on Issue No. 1. As a result of his findings, he dismissed the suit with costs by his judgment dated 6th August, 1958. In appeal, the learned Chief Judge reversed the finding of the learned Munsiff on Issue No. 14 and remanded the case to the trial Court for decision on the other issues. Hence this appeal. The relevant facts, which formed the antecedents and the background for the present case, may be briefly stated thus. One Pullaiah had four sons, Ramanna, Lakshmanna, Kishtanna and Rangaiah. The plaintiff herein is the son of Lakahmanna. The present fifth defendant is a direct descendant of Kishtanna. The present fourth defendant is the son of Rangaiah and the first defendant herein is one of the three sons of Ramanna. On 5th April, 1919, the fourth defendant filed O.S. No. 62 of 1919 for partition and separate possession of properties and for other connected reliefs. In that suit, Rao Bahadur Ramanna himself was the first defendant. His son, Ramachandraiah, who is the first defendant in the present suit, was the second defendant. The present plaintiff was the sixth defendant and the father of the present fifth defendant was the seventh defendant. On 7th December, 1937, a preliminary decree was passed in that suit which, in effect, allotted one-fourth share to each of the four branches.

(3.) Rao Bahadur Ramanna was carrying on business in abkari as a partner in a partnership with others. That partnership fell into arrears of amounts which were due for 1342 Fasli i.e., about the year 1933. The Abkari Department attached various properties, which stood in the name of Rao Bahadur Ramanna as belonging to him, and the attachment came into effect on 15th June, 1939. On 18th March, 1938, the parties filed a compromise petition in the District Court, Secunderabad agreeing to a decree under which Rao Bahadur Ramanna and his branch got nothing at all. By virtue of that compromise, the plaintiff got 4/20th share and the fourth defendant got 11/20th share while the branch of the fifth defendant got 5/20th share. Para. 3 of the compromise decree provides thus:-