S SIVANANDAREDDI Vs. M GURUMURTHI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are against the Judgment of our learned brother Chandrasekhara Sastry J., in CMSA 25 and 26 of 1964 whereby he reversed the judgments and decrees of the two lower Courts in applications in execution proceedings.

(2.) The relevant facts have been stated by our learned brother and they are as follows: The property, which is the subject-matter of these appeals, belonged to one Kuppi Reddi, who died possessed of the said properties. He left a widow, who during her lifetime, started alienating some of the properties and the nearest reversioner, one Ada Reedy, challenged those alienations in OS No. 588 of 1954 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Chittoor. During the pendency of that suit, it may be stated that one Sivananda Reddi, who is the present appellant, then a minor, filed a suit OS. No. 215 of 1955, on the file of the same Court claiming to be the adopted son of the Kuppi Reddi. The defendants in that suit were some of the aliens as also Ada Reddi, the plaintiff in OS. No. 588 of 1954. The adoption of the appellant herein was challenged in that suit and ultimately OS. No. 215 of 1955, was dismissed on the ground that the adoption was neither true nor valid. OS. No. 588 of 1954 was decreed. While there was an appeal (A. S. No. 208 of 1956 on the file of the District Court, Chittoor) against the judgment in OS No. 215 of 1955, there was no appeal filed and the judgment in OS No. 588 of 1954 and the judgment therefore became final and the alienations which were challenged by Ada Reddi were set aside. The District Judge, Chittoor dismissed A. S. No. 208 of 1956 of 15-4-1957 confirming the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff-appellants adoption was neither true nor valid. But before the appeal was actually disposed of. Ada Reddi sold part of the property to the respondents in these appeals on 11-3-1957 and after the dismissal of the appeal, those sale deeds were registered. Against the judgment and decree dismissing the appeal, the appellant before us filed a second appeal, S. A. No. 902 of 1957. The respondents in these appeals having come to respondents in these appeals having come to know that there was a likelihood of a compromise behind their back between Ada Reddi and the appellant applied to be brought on record as respondents 2 and 3 though the application was opposed, having regard to a judgment of Umamaheswararm J., in Venkata Narasimha Raju v. Yellamanda 1958-2 An WR 291: (AIR 1960 Andh-Pra 32), they were brought on record for the purpose of supporting the judgment negating the adoption. During the pendency of this appeal, Ada Reddi died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 4 to 6. Thereafter, the appellant and respondents 4 to 6 filed C. M. P. No. 10206 of 1962 to pass a decree in terms thereof. This petition prayed for the following: (1) That the adoption of the appellant Sivanandareddi to late Kuppireddi be declared. (2) That the appellant-plaintiff do take possession of the plaint schedule-mentioned properties through Court.

(3.) That the parties do bear their own costs in all the Court. This compromise was opposed by respondents 2 and 3 therein and they prayed that the matter should be disposed of on merits which however involved the adjudication of the status of the appellant, as an adopted son. Finding that this may lead to embarrassing results having regard to the concurrent finding of both the Courts, a supplemental memo of compromise was filed before Seshachalapati, J. For passing a decree on the following terms: (1) That Sivananda is the adopted son of late Kuppireddi. (2) That the appellant-plaintiff shall take possession of the plaint schedule properties through Court: (3) That the compromise shall not affect the rights of the respondents 2 and 3 herein.