PALACHERLA ANANDU Vs. MALLIPUDI ACHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question to be answered by Full Bench is whether a party to a suit, who was absolved from liability by the trial Court, can impleaded as a respondent to an appeal prefer by an aggrieved party to which he was not originally made a party and a decree passed against him by virtue of the combined operation of rules 20 and 33 of O. 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE facts material for this enquiry may be briefly set out: Respondents 7 and 8 originally laid action as reversioners to the estate of Ammanna, impeaching a gift made by the widow (1st defendant) in favour of her nephew the defendant on 26 -6 -1946. The last male -holder died in or about the year 1890 him surviving widow. The properties settled on the 2nd defendant were purchased by the widow in the year 1894 under Exs. B -5 and B -6 for a sum of Rs. 600/ -, having sold on 9 -11 -1894 20 -12 -1894 some of the properties belonging to husband's estate which are items 7 to 12 of schedule for Rs. 350/ - under Exs. B -40 and B -4.

(3.) THE defence of the 2nd defendant, so far relevant for the purpose of this appeal was that mamma had not exchanged any or the properties the last male -holder with the plaint 'A' schedule properties and that 'A' scheduled properties were her self -acquisitions and were throughout treated as her stridhana properties. The present appellants by their written statement supported plaintiffs case regarding the exchange of items 7 to 12 of the 'B' schedule and also raised plea that the plaintiffs were not entitled to seek the alternative relief in regard to items 7 to 12 of 'B' schedule. The trial Court accepted the case of exchange and consequently gave a decree for the 'A' and 'B' scheduled properties other than items 7 to 12 of 'B' schedule.