MUDRAGADA SATYANARAYANA Vs. JAMMI VEERRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.7, Viramma, transferred the suit lands to the appellant through a sale deed, dated 19-3-1950. Respondents 1 to 6 filed a suit O.S. 10 of 1950 in the District Court of East Godavary at Rajahmundry for declaration that the sale deed Ex. B-2 dated 19-3-1950 executed by respondent 1 in favour of the appellant was not valid and binding on them. This suit of the respondents has been decreed by the Principal Subordinate Judge tHE alienee has now come up in appeal.

(2.) The brief facts are: One Jammi Rayudu, the original ancestor of the plaintiff-respondents 1 to 6s family had three sons, Baliah, Narsiah and Appanna. Baliah had three sons by name Rayudu, father of respondents 1 to 4, Viraswamy, father of respondents 5 and 6 and Somanna, 7th plaintiff and 6th respondent herein. Jammi Rayudu acquired extensive lands including the suit lands. On the death of Rayudu, the suit lands and other remaining properties devolved on his three- sons, Balaiah, Narsiah, and Appanna who constituted a joint Hindu family. Appanna died 50 years ago un-divided and intestate leaving behind him his widow Baganima. Narsiah also died in about 1904 undivided and intestate leaving behind him his widow Viramma (respondent 7). After the death of Appanna, his widow Bagamma claimed maintenance. She was given 4 acres in revision survey No. 78 and another four acres in revision survey No. 54/2 in Rajahmundry village to be enjoyed by her for life in lieu of maintenance and to be reverted to the family after her demise. After the death of Narsiah, his widow Virarnma, respondent 7 also demanded maintenance. At the in-stance of elderly people, the plaint schedule lands were given to her in lieu of maintenance to be enjoyed by her for life and to be reverted to the family after her death. It is alleged that respondent 7 has no right to sell or dispose of the property, that Appellant and respondent 7 having conspired together brought into existence the alleged sale deed dated 19-3-50, that the said sale is not for legal necessity or benefit of the estate and that therefore is not binding on respondents 1 to 6 who are the reversioners. Respondents 1 to 6 further stated that the sale price was too inadequate. It was alsop1 alleged that even assuming that Narsiah died divided in status and the suit lands represented Narsiahs share in the family properties, since Narsiah died issueless and without making any testamentary disposition, the suit lands devolved on respondent 7 with the limited rights of a Hindu widow only and she was hound to enjoy the same till her life time. The plea of respondent 7 and the appellant in their written statement was that die sale in question was valid and for adequate consideration. They denied that Baliah and Narsiah were undivided by the time of the death of Narsiah and stated that late Narsiah was divided with his brother Baliah prior to 1902 and was in possession of about 15-50 cents which fell to his share, that on 5-5-1902, the late Narstah executed a will bequeatlung to the 7th respondent with absolute rights of his properties, his land etc. Respondent 7 further denied that she ever demanded any maintenance from respondents 1 to 6 and stated that she was in possession of the suit properties in her own right. She, however, denied that her possession was in lieu of maintenance.

(3.) The Principal Subordinate Judge framed six issues and on the evidence produced by the parties the Court held that partition between Narsiah and Baliah was not proved and that respondent 7 was in possession of the suit lands under an agreement by which she was to enjoy the same in lieu of her maintenance. It further held that the alleged will was a concocted document and the sale deed was a colourable transaction not binding on the never-sioners. In the result, the Principal Subordinate Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs declaring that the sale deed was not valid and binding on the reversioners.