SEELU SUBBARAMAYYA Vs. KOTAMREDDI KOTAREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants. Their suit as the nearest reversioners of Ramanujam, the last male-holder, questioning the alienations made by Ghinnamma, the mother of Ramanujam and the life estateholder, in favour of defendants 1 to 11 has been decreed as against defendant No. 10 and dismissed as against all others. The dismissal as against defendants 1 to 6, 9 and 11 was in consequence of settlement out of Court and as against defendants 7 and 8 who are the alienees from the purchaser of ac. 0.64 cents of land in revenue sale for arrears of renvenue Was on merits. The present appeal is confined to their claim in relation to these ac. 0.64 cents in possession of defendants 7 and 8 in equal halves under sale deeds Exhibit B-1 and B-3.

(2.) The facts are few. The original holder of these lands was one Varadayya, a Harijan of Aluganipadu in Kowur taluk. He had two wives Obamma and Ghinnamma one daughter by name Guravamma by his first wife and two sons Ramalingam and Ramanujam by his second wife at the time he died. The two sons got into possession of the property by right of survivorship. They did not however live long. They died unmarried one after the other. Ramanujam was, the last male-holder. After him Ghinnamma succeeded to the property as the mother. She had a mere life estate and she died on 27th November, 1953. The plaintiffs, the sons of Guravamma, were the only nearest reVersioners to the last male-holder at the t'me Ghinnamma died. During her life-time Chinnamma is said to have effected several alienations. We are not concerned with the same for the controversy in the present appeal relates only to the land ac. 0.64 cents in extent which was put to sale for arrears of revenue by the revenue authorities and was purchased by China Venkata Ramana Reddy who, in turn, sold it in two halves to defendants 7 and 8 within a short time after his purchase in 1940. The plaintiffs' contention was that this sale, as other alienations, is not binding on them for with sufficient landed property at her disposal yielding considerable income and with practically no liabilities whatsoever, for if at all she had to support any it was her own self, Ghinnamma could not legit mately allow the revenue to run into arrears or the sale take place even though the amount was meagre which she could pay out of the surplus income from the property and that further the revenue sale was not genuine it was a collusive and fraudulent transaction brought about designedly by the defendants 7 and 8 and Chinnamma, who was out to harass the plaintiffs and see nothing goes to them. It was also urged that at any rate the auction purchaser or his alienees could not continue in possession after the death of Chinnamma for all that they purchased was only a life interest.

(3.) The defendants den;ed the alleged collusion and said that the items 12 and 13 were sold in revenue sale for arrears of revenue and China Venkata Ramana Reddy became the purchaser and that they are bona fide purchaser for value from him. The sale was valid and binding on the reVersioners. As a result of these sales they (defendants 7 and 8) are in possession since 1940.