CHILUKURI VENKATA SATYANARAYANA RAO1 Vs. ACHANTA LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O. S. 43/64 District Court East Godavari Rajahmundry is the appellant. He is the daughters son of one Mr. Venkatramanayya who died on 8-2-1891 leaving behind him his widow, Rukminamma and has two daughters, Venkata Hanumayamma and Ramaseetamma. Venkata Hanumayamma died in 1929 and Rukminamma died on 18-3-1932. On the death of Venktaramanayya his widow Rukminamma became entitled to a womans estate in his properties and on her death, as the daughter, Venkata Hanumayamma, had predeceased her, Ramaseethamma such proceeded to the properties. She died on 8-2-1955. After her death, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming that he was the reversioner to the Estate of Venkataramanayya. His case was that he had a younger brother Venkataramana Rao who died on 17-6-1964 before the reversion opened and therefore he alone was entitled to the properties. During the lifetime of Rukminamma, Venkata Hanumayamma, and Ramaseethamma, several alienations were made in respect of several items of properties. All the alienees who were in possession of different items of properties were added as defendants. Their main contention was that the suit was barred by limitation. According to them on 4-12-1934 Ramaseethamma who was then in possession and enjoyment of the properties as the sole female heir of Venkataramanayya executed a registered surrender deed in favour of the nearest reversioners, namely, the plaintiff and his brother for a consideration of Rs. 1,000.00 towards her maintenance for lifetime. The properties surrendered included those that were already alienated by Rukminamma and her two daughters. In regard to some of the alienations, the plaintiff who was then a minor was also a party being represented by his father and guardian. As the surrender was made in 1934 it was contended that the right to sue for recovery of possession of all the properties accrued to the plaintiff even on that day itself and as the suit was filed on 5-12-1964 more than 30 years after the date, the suit was barred by limitation. The alienations were also sought to be supported on the ground that they were for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate or were made for pious and charitable purpose.

(2.) The learned District Judge held that there was a valid surrender as contended by the defendants by Ramaseethamma in favour of the plaintiff and his brother who were the nearest reversioners under the surrender deed dated 4-12-1934. He therefore held that the reversion to the estate of the last male owner, Venkataramanayya opened on 4-12-1934 when the surrender deed was executed and not on 8-2-1955 when Ramaseethamma died. In the result he held that the suit was barred by limitation. He found that all the properties except items 56 and 57 formed part of the estate of Venkataramanayya. He dealt with the validity of the several alienations made in favour of the defendants or their predecessors-in-title and gave his findings. He held that the alienations in respect of items 1 to 43 and 116 of the plaint schedule are not valid and binding upon the reversion. Regarding alienation of items 1, 53, 54 and 55 he held that they were subsequent to the filing of the suit and were hit by the rule of lis pendens. It is unnecessary for us to set out in detail the findings on the several issues as we are of the view for the reasons to be given presently that the decision of the Court below that the suit is barred by limitation is correct.

(3.) In this appeal preferred by the plaintiff Sri Venkatapathi Raju, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the surrender deed, Ex. A-32 executed by Ramaseethamma in favour of the plaintiff and his brother is not valid. He submitted that it is admitted and it was found by the Court below that by that time, several items of property had been alienated either by Rukminamma, the widow or one or other of the two daughters. He therefore submitted that any surrender made after alienations of a part of the property have been effected cannot be said to be a surrender of the entire estate belonging to the last male-owner and unless the surrender by a limited owner is of the entire estate, the surrender cannot be valid. In any event he contended that as some of the alienations have been held in this very suit itself to be not binding upon the estate, they continued to form part of the estate of the last male Venkataramanayya and therefore the surrender was not of the entire estate. He also drew our attention to a judgment on O. S. 25/38. Sub-Court, Eluru in which the question of the validity of the surrender deed, Ex. A-32 had to be considered and in which it was held that the surrender was only nominal and was not intended to be acted upon. He submitted that in view of this judgment, it must be taken in these proceedings also, that the surrender was nominal and was not intended to be acted upon and hence the reversion opened only on the death of Ramaseethamma on 8-2-1955. In answer to this last submission it was argued by Sri Bapi Raju, learned counsel for the respondent that the suit O. S. No. 25/38 was a collusive one and the judgment in those proceedings is not binding on the parties to the present suit. He submitted that on the basis of the evidence in this suit, it was clear that the surrender was valid and had to be given effect to.