BOBBA SURAMMA Vs. PEDDIREDDI CHANDRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal raises some interesting questions under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) We may give a resume of the facts culminating in the second appeal. The respondent, who is an alien from defendants 6 to 8, the reversioners to the estate of one Devarakonda Bangarayya, laid an action for the recovery of some items of property, including item 1 which is in dispute in this second appeal, Bangarayya died before 1931, leaving behind him his widow, Suramma. The property in question was purchased by Bangarayya on 8-5-1915, under Ex. B. 4. Being unable to find the purchase price, he mortgaged that very property to one Padmanabhudu, the paternal grand-father of the fourth defendant, under Ex. B-l dated 10-5-1915, for a sum of Rs, 700/-. This mortgage was kept alive by subsequent payments. In order to discharge this mortgage and other simple debts, Suramma conveyed this property, under Ex. B-5 dated 3-5-1934, to one Nagayya. It was stipulated that the vendee should retain a part of the consideration and utilise it to discharge the encumbrance on that property. Since the vendee did not carry out his obligation, Suramma was put to the necessity of executing a sale deed in favour of Padmanabhudu on 8-l-1934.

(3.) On this part of the case, there are inconsistent versions presented by the appellant. In the written statement filed in a prior litigation, it was stated that the sale in favour of Padmanabhudu preceded the sale in favour of Nagayya, whereas in the present action, the order is changed and the sale in favour of Nagavya is shown to be earlier. This inconsistency is reflected even in the oral evidence. That apart, the plaintiff denies the existence of a sale in favour of Padmanabhudu.