KATARI RAMAMMA Vs. PALAKODETI VEERAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the legal representative of the 5th defendant in a suit to recover Ac. 1-50 cents of the plaint A schedule property, as well as Rs. 1,000.00 as damages. The property in A Schedule was formerly comprised in Block Survey No. 447 of Palakoderu Village and belonged to one Tammayya who had two sons, Veerrafu and Rama-doss. The former is the plaintiff, and the latter is the father of the first and second defendants in this suit. Tammayya who was a resident of the village Gollalukoderu had exchanged his property for what is mentioned in B Schedule to the plaint. This property is situated in the village, of which Tammayya was a resident, and was exchanged apparently for the better enjoyment of the produce. The exchange is alleged to have taken place between him and one Kottapalli Nalla Bapiraju on or about 80-4-1886. Sometime later the daughter of Bapiraju filed O. S. No. 89 of 1900 in the District Munsifs Court, Bhimavaram, against the two sons of Tammayya. This was for a decree to direct the registration of A Schedule property in her name in the revenue accounts and of the B Schedule property in the name of Veerraju and Ramadoss. The daughters suit ended in a compromise and a decree in terms thereof was passed on 9-8-1900. It would be useful to give the following extracts from the aforesaid decree, whose certified copy is Ex, A-1 : "***** (1) That the defendants shall enjoy as of right the plaintiffs jeroiti lands bearing Nos. 444 and 510 measuring Acs. 2-36 cents in Gbllalakederu village and to record the said land in the name of the defendants; (2) That the plaintiff shall enjoy in exchange Acs. 2-20 cents out of service inams of defendants bearing No. 447 in Palakoderu and record the same in accounts in the name of the plaintiff; (3) That, if for any reason, the said exchange fails, each shall take possession of his respective land mentioned above. xxxxx"

(2.) In chronological order the next important fact is that on 8-10-1900 the daughter, Gandiraju Bapanayya, sold to one Gadiraju Seetayya the A Schedule property for Rs. 400.00. The property after the purchasers death devolved on her two daughters, the first of these being the 5th defendant and the other, who had since died, being the wife of the third as well as the mother of the 4th defendant. The respondent has alleged that the alienation was for no consideration and was executed and delivered nominally in favour of the purchaser. The trial Courts opinion on the plea of the transaction being without consideration was conflicting. At one point in his judgment he had thought the sale deed to have been nominally executed, but later in the same judgment he found the sale to be supported by consideration. The lower Appellate Court assumed the transaction to be for consideration. A Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a party, on 4-9-1957 called for a finding from the lower Appellate Court as to whether the 5th defendants mother had purchased the suit land as a bona fide purchaser for consideration. The finding that has been returned is that the alienation was for consideration.

(3.) But to continue with the narration of events which has resulted in the litigation giving rise to this appeal, the plaintiff and his brother continued in possession of the B Schedule property jointly till 1922. In that year they separated, whereby the plaintiff got Ac. 1-48 cents and the two nephews were given 87 cents. After the partition the plaintiff on 4-1-1935 sold his share of the land to Dharbha Subbaraidu. This purchaser was subsequently dispossessed in consequence of the suit, which is O. S. No. 225 of 1940 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Bhimavaram. The claim was filed by the 3rd defendant and his brother Bhupatiraju Venkata Rama Raju on the basis of their being reversioners of the daughter, who was the plaintiff in the compromise decree of 1900 and that alienation not being binding on them. The claim was decreed and it is not denied that in execution of the decree which the reversioners got against the purchaser of the property from the plaintiff, the aforesaid purchaser was dispossessed. Consequently he gave notices to the plaintiff claiming Rs. 4,000.00 as damages for the loss of the property.