PUNYAMURTULA SATYANARAYANA KRISHNAMARJU Vs. SATYAVOLU APPARAO AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The simple question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the alienation of the 6th item in schedule 'C' made by the widow Seetamma in favour of the 10th defendant-appellant under Exhibit B-15, dated 8th February, 1938, is a valid transaction supported by legal necessity. The Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry held in paragraph 22 of the judgment that the alienation was invalid and not binding on the respondents-reversioner's.

(2.) The sale deed recites that it was executed (1) for the purpose of discharging the debt due on the promissory note executed on 6th August, 1935, in favour of Haridevara Ramachandram for expenses incurred in connection with the pilgrimages to Kasi, Gaya and Rameswaram for attainment of spiritual salvation of her deceased husband and for her spiritual salvation and happiness; (2) for discharging the debt due on the promissory note executed on 4th December, 1935, in favour of Vantipalli Subbanna for the amount borrowed for expenses in connection with the Laksha Vathula Vratam performed by her for attainment of spiritual salvation and happiness, and (3) for her maintenance. The promissory note executed in favour of Haridevara Ramachandram is marked as Exhibit B-18 and it recites that a sum of Rs. 200 was borrowed by her for discharging the debts contracted in connection with her pilgrimage to Kasi and other places. The promissory note executed in favour of Vantipalli Subbanna is Exhibit B-19, and it recites that the amount was borrowed for purchasing necessary materials to perform Laksha Vathula Vratam. The endorsements on the two promissory notes (Exhibits B-18 and B-19) show that the appellant paid Rs. 260 and Rs. 189 in full discharge of those notes. The sum of Rs. 155 was paid before the Sub-Registrar. There can therefor be no doubt that the appellant paid the consideration under the sale deed.

(3.) The next question that has to be decided is whether the alienee-appellant has satisfactorily established that the sale was for legal necessity. The appellant examined himself as D.W. 1. He did not depose that the widow went on pilgrimage to Kasi, Gaya or Rameswaram as mentioned in the sale deed. In the examination-in-chief, he stated that he knew that she performed the Vratam. But in the cross-examination it was elicited that though the widow used to stay in his house whenever she visited his village, she did not invite him for vratam. He stated as follows :