NALLAJERLA KRISHNAYYA Vs. VUPPALA RAGHAVULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is placed before a Bench Umamaheswaram J, who heard it first thought important question of law was involved.

(2.) THE controversy in the appeal centres row S. 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act. The facts the have given rise to this appeal may be briefly recalled. The respondent gave two acres of land for maintenance to his brother's widow under Ex. A -l dated 29 -4 -1933. He took the property from her on lease under three documents, Ex. A -5 dated 16 -7 -1934 for a period of three years, there being a renewal under Ex. A -6 dated 30 -4 -1937 for a period of three years.

(3.) IN addition to these two cases, reliance was placed by Mr. Ramanarusu, the learned counsel for the respondent, on a judgment of the Patna High Court in Lai Mohan v. Onkar Mall,, AIR 1946 Pat 55 (C). In our opinion, this case also is of the same category as the two noticed above. On a construction of the document, which was a compromise petition, it was held that it was a family arrangement which did not involve any transfer and that what was given to the widow was something which was restricted to her enjoyment personally.