KOPPULA SURAREDDY DIED Vs. KOPPULA VENKATA SUBBAREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of our learned brother, Bhimasankaram J., in S. A. Nos. 923 and 924 of 3953.

(2.) The plaintiff is the appellant in both these appeals. He instituted two suits (O. S. Nos. 293 and 294 of 1950 on the file of the D. M. C. Nandyal) impeaching two alienations made by the 1st defendant, under Exhibits B.12 and B.13 dated 27-8-1937, and for a declaration in both the suits that the relative alienations would not bind the reversion. The facts which have contributed to this litigation lie in a narrow compass and could be narrated in a few words. One Hanumantha Reddy, who was a divided brother of the appellant, had an only son who was afflicted with serious illness and which caused an apprehension in the mind of Hanumantha Reddy that his son might not survive long. He, therefore, made a will dated 18/06/1923 (Ex. B. 45), the relevant contents of which are given, hereunder : "I have a son by name Sanjeevi Reddi who is aged only three years. He and I have been suffering from very serious illness. But apprehending that both of us may not recover from the illness we have been suffering from, I have made the following provision that after my death, both my wife and my son Sanjeevi Reddi shall enjoy the entire movable and immovable properties, the cattle, etc. which belong to me. This will, undeniably, reveals the intention of the testator that his properties should be enjoyed by his wife and son and none else, and that they should not go to his divided brother, i.e., the present plaintiff. Subsequently, two daughters were born to him, Subbamma, the 1st defendant herein and China Subbamma. Sanjeevi Reddi died in 1925. Despite this, Hanumantha Reddi did not think of altering the will. He passed away on 17th October 1931.

(3.) On the assumption that she got the whole property under the will by reason of the death of her only son, Lingamma made a gift of it to the 1st defendant, as China Subbamma had pre-deceased her. Lingamma died within a month of this settlement. After coming into possession of these properties, the first defendant alienated them under Exhibits B.12 and B.13 in favour of the second defendant in O. S. No. 293 of 1950 and the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 2 and 3 in O. S. No. 294 of 1950. Several years thereafter, the present litigation was started by the divided brother of Hanumantha Reddi for purposes mentioned above.