CHINNA RAMI REDDY Vs. SITA RAMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. M. A. 219/64 is directed against an order of the learned Subor dinate judge, Mahaboobnagar, dismissing O. P. 11/60 filed by the appellant under Section 144 C.P.C. for recovery of mesne profits by way of restitution.

(2.) Tippareddy of Kanchupahad village died possessed of extensive landed and other properties in 1328 F leaving behind him bis widow, Tulasamma and a daughter Kistamma. Kistamma, who was given in marriage to Chinna Ramreddy, the appellant (petitioner) died in 1348 F (1939). On 29tb of Mav, 1939, Tulasamma took the 1st respondent, Sitaram Reddy, who is the aurasa son of the 2nd respondent, in adoption and also executed a registered deed evidencing the same. On the same day, the appellant initiated proceedings under Section 148 of the Asafia Cr.P. C. in the Munsif Magistrate's Court at Alampur in respect of the landed properties of which Tippareddy died possessed. The property was attached and taken into Court custody by the Magistrate during the pendency of that proceeding. On the 19th of June, 1939, the appellant brought a suit, 23/1348 F. in Sardar-E. Adalatb, Gulbaraga, against Tulasamma and the respondents herein to declare among other things (1) that he is the illotam son-in-law of Tippa Reddy and is therefore the "owner and possessor" of the property described in the schedule appended to his plaint (2) that the adoption of the 1st respondent by Tulasamma to her husband, Tippa Reddy, is not true, valid and binding on him, and (3) that the alienation of certain items of property by Tulasamma in favour of respondents 2 and 4 by way of a gift and sale are void and not binding on him He did not ask for possession of the properties at the outset but was later on permitted to amend his plaint to include a prayer for possession also as he alleged that subsequent to the institution of the suit, the Munsif Magistrate disposed of the proceedings under Section 148 Cr. P. C, His suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 3-9 1943 whereupon he carried the matter in appeal to the erstwhile High Court of Hyderabad and also moved that Court for the appointment of a receiver for the properties pending oisposal of the appeal. Shortly after this appeal was filed, Tulasamma instituted suit No. 118/2/1351 F. in the court of the District Judge, Raichur against the 1st respondent, represented by the 2nd respondent as guardian, for declaration of her title to the properties and cancellation of the adoption deed which she executed earlier in favour of the 1st respondent. On the same day, i. e. on 20-9-1942, she applied to the Court for the appointment of a Receiver as the Magistrate appears to have been moved under Section 148 Cr. P. C by the natural father of the 1st respondent in regard to the same properties. A receiver was accordingly appointed and he obtained possession of the properties from the Magistrate. who took them into his custody sometime before them. The petition, which the appellant filed in the High Court for the appointment of a Receiver seems to have been allowed; but as the properties were already in the possession of the receiver appointed in the suit filed by Tulasamma, the High Court directed the "Status quo" to be maintained pending disposal of the appeal. The order in question is not produced but copies of the letters, which the Registrar, High Court wrote to the District Judge, Raichur, communicating the orders passed by the High Court in the receiver petition filed by the appellant are before the Court. On the strength of those letters, the District, Judge, Raichur, instructed the receiver appointed by him in Tulasamma's suit to continue to remain in possession of the properties unless the High Court orders otherwise in the appeal preferred by Chinna Ramireddy. Tulasamma withdrew her suit when the appeal preferred by her son-in-law was pending.

(3.) Chinna Ramreddy's appeal also was dismissed by the High Court on 11-4-1944. On 14-4-1945, the High Court passed orders, at the instance of the 1st respondent, discharging the receiver and directing him to release the property in his favour. The receiver accordingly handed over the properties to the 2nd respondent on 18-4-1945 as the 1st respondent was still a minon Aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court in his case, Chinna Ramreddy filed an appeal before the Judicial Committee of the erstwhile Hyderabad State and this appeal was allowed on 25-1-1950. Shortly thereafter, he applied to the Sadar-E. Adalath, Gulbarga, for recovery of possession and costs by way of execution of the decree obtained by him from the judicial Committee. This was objected to by the 1st respondent on various grounds but the court over-ruled those objec. tions and directed execution to issue. Aggrieved by this order, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal to the Hyderabad High Court and obtained stay of execution subject to his depositing Rs. 10,000/- per year into Court towards profits, pending disposal of that appeal. The execution petition filed by the appellant was later transferred to the District Court, Raichur, as a result of the abolition of the Sadar E. Adalatb, Gulbarga. The appellant thereafter filed the petition out of which this appeal arose, under Section 144 C. P. C. for recovery of mesne profits by way of restitution, from respondents 1 and 2, in the District Court, Raichur. He estimated the profits at Rs. 10,000 per annum and prayed for recovery of Rs. 70,000/- towards past profits for 7 years and also future profits at the same rate till delivery of possession to him. The District Judge Raichur "Struck off" this petition on 30-8-52 on the ground that execution of the decree was stayed by the High Court. The appeal preferred by the 1st respondent to the High Court questioning the executability of the decree obtained by Chinna Ramareddy from the judicial Committee, was ultimately dismissed whereafter the latter applied to the District Judge, Raichur, to reopen his petitions for execution and restitution. The petitions were revived and sent to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar, consequent on the reorganisation of the States. The appellant thereafter obtained symbolical possession of the property decreed to him by the Judicial Committee as it was in the occupation of tenants.