LAWS(APH)-1959-12-2

POLAMREDDI SUBBARAMA REDDI Vs. YERATAPALLI CHANDRASEKHARA REDDI

Decided On December 24, 1959
POLAMREDDI SUBBARAMA REDDI Appellant
V/S
YERATAPALLI CHANDRASEKHARA REDDI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of a suit filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,581-5-9. It is necessary to state a few facts in order to understand as to how the suit came to be filed.

(2.) One Subbareddi the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants 1, 2, and 3 sold 63 cents of land to Balaramareddi, the father of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and the husband of plaintiff No. 5 for Rs. 651.00 under Ex. A. 1 dated 15-3-1927. After this the trustee of a temple filed a suit being O. S. 134/1941 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Nellorc, stating that the 63 cents sold by Subbareddi was temple property and prayed for recovery of possession of the property from the present plaintiffs father. The suit, after trial, was decreed by the trial court. There was an appeal to the first appellate court and a further second appeal to the High Court and the decree was confirmed by the High Court in S. A. No. 1235 of 1946 on 15-7-1949.Alter the decree had become final, the plaintiff surrendered possession to the trustee on 1-8-1949 and also paid the mesne profits amounting to Rs. 432-13-9 being the amount decreed to the trustee of the temple. He also paid the taxed costs amounting to Rs. 320-10-0. While things were going on like this, Subbareddi the original vendor died leaving a will, Ex. B. 3 dated 29-4-1933 under which he bequeathed all his properties to his monther-in-law Seshamma. This Seshamma in her turn bequeathed a portion of the properties that she got under the will of Subbareddi, in favour of defendant No. 3 under Ex. B. 4 and the residue in favour of defendants 1 and 2.

(3.) The present suit was brought by the plaintiffs seeking to recover the amount that Balaramareddy paid for the 63 cents of land and also the amount paid as mcsne profits to the trustee and the costs under the decree of the High Court. The claim was based upon the covenant for good title and quiet enjoyment in the document of sale in favour of the father of the plaintiff, P. W.