KONAKANCHI NAGAYYA Vs. KONDRAMUTLA HANUMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st defendant is the appellant. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of item 1 with which I am concerned, from the defendants 1 and 2. who are father and son. In the alternative they sought partition with a request that Item 1 should be allotted to the 1st defendant so that the plaintiffs may get the same. It was alleged that the 1st defendant sold under Exhibit A-3 dated 12-10-1943 the first item to his second wife. This sale deed was executed with a view that the wife should come and stay with the 1st defendant. Since she did not come, the 1st defendant instituted O. S. No. 36 of 1947 for restitution of conjugal rights on 24-1-1947, Exhibit B-2. On 11-4-1947 under Exhibit A-1 Chandramma, the second wife of the 1st defendant sold to the plaintiffs item 1 of course pending the suit O. S. 36 of 1947. The plaintiffs who had thus purchased item I gave notice to the 1st defendant on 14-7-1947, Exhibit B-1. The 1st defendant gave reply that the sale deed was void. Subsequently O. S. No. 36 of 1947 was decreed on 25-11-1947, Exhibit B-4 is the judgment.

(2.) The plaintiffs instituted the suit, O. S. No. 341 of 1951 before the District Munsifs court. Narasaraopet for possession as against the 1st defendant only. In view of some formal defect the suit was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit/ That is how the present suit O. S. 11 of 1956 was filed on 21-10-1955 for possession on the basis of the sale deed executed by the second wife of the 1st defendant.

(3.) The defence was that an alliance, from a alliance would not be entitled to any equity. I am not concerned with the other defences raised.