YEDITHA SATYANARAYANAMURTY Vs. TADI SUBRAHMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These second appeals have been referred to a Bench by Umamaheswaram J., as an important question of law relating to the interpretation of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is involved in them.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute and may be briefly set out in so far as they are relevant for this enquiry. The plaintiffs, three in number, and defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant and originally they formed members of a joint Hindu family. Defendants 1 to 3, the first plaintiff and plaintiff 2 minor by his father and guardian, the first defendant, executed a simple mortgage for Rs. 4,500.00 in favour of the Yeditha Lachanria. On the same day, the same persons executed another simple mortgage for a similar sum in favour of one Yeditha Sathiraju. Sometime later, i.e., on 2/11/1934, agreements of sale were executed in favour of the mortgagees by defendants 1 to 3 and plaintiffs 2 and 3, the later two being minors by their father and guardian, the first defendant. It is unnecessary for us in this context to refer to the proceedings for scaling down the debts instituted by one or the other members of the family.

(3.) The suits giving rise to these appeals were instituted by the three plaintiffs, plaintiffs 2 and 3 being the younger brother of the first plaintiff, for partition of the A schedule properties into six equal shares, for possession of such shares and for other incidental reliefs, after declaring that the agreements dated 2/11/1934 in favour of the defendants would not bind the plaintiffs etc., or in the alternative, for recovery of the value of the unpaid purchase money with interest thereon. The suits were dismissed by the Subordinate Judge in the view that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act prevented the plaintiffs from asserting any title to the properties in dispute. On appeal, the District Judge decreed the suits as regards the share of the first plaintiff, while confirming the judgment of the trial court in regard to plaintiffs 2 and 3 being of the opinion that Section 53-A was no impediment in the way of the first plaintiff filing a suit for partition and for recovery of his share of the property. This conclusion of the District Judge is assailed in these second appeals filed by the aggrieved defendants.