C V SATYANARAYANA Vs. A LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O S. 43/1964 District Court, East Godavari, Rajabmundry is the appellant. He is the daughter's son of one M. Venkatramanayya who died on 8-2-1891 leaving behind him his widow, Rukmtnamma and his two daughters, Venkata Hanumayamma and Ramaseethamma. Venkata Hanumayamma died in 1929 aad Kukmina ma died on 18-3 1932 On the death of Venkataramanayya his widow Rukminamma became entitled to a woman's estate in his properties and on her death, as the daughter, Venkata Hanumayamma, had predeceased her, Ramaseethamna, succeeded to the properties. She died on 8 2-1955. Afier her death, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming that he was the reversioner to the State 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 life time 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 wasbaired by limitation. According to them on 4-2-1934 Rs maseethamma who was then in possesssion 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 towards her maintenance for life time. 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 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 tha estate or when made for pious and charitable purpose.

(2.) The learned District Judge held that there was a valid surrender as contended by the defendants by Ramaseetbamma, in favour of the plaintiff and his brother who were the nearest reversioners under the surrender deed dt. 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 execept items 66 and 57 formed part of the estate of Venkataramanayya. He dealt that 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 53 and 116 of the plaint schedule are not valid and binding upon the revesion. Regarding alienation of itmes 1,53, 54, and 55 he held that they were subsequent to the filing of the suit and were hit by the rule of LISPENENDSI; 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 prefeired by the plaintiff Sri. Venkatapathi Raju, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the surrender deed, Ex. A-32 executed by Ramaseethamma in favour of the plaintiff and his brothe is not valid He submitted that it is admitted and it was found by the Court below that by that time, several items of proptrty had been alienate either by Rukminamma, the widow, or one or other of the two daughters. He therefore submitted that any surrender made after alienations of apart 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 ownr 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 Venkataramaaayya and therefore the surrender was not of the entire estate. He also drew our attention to judgment in O.S. 25/38, sub court, Eluru in which the question of the surrender deed, Ex.-A32 had to be considered and ia 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 judgement, 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 8-2-1956. 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 ta 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 hold to be given effect to.