PUSARAPU VENKATA REDDAYYA Vs. THORAM YARAKAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant before us in this Second Appeal. He brought the suit as the assignee of a mortgage bond executed by the 1 defendant in 1889 in favour of the 29th defendant's faiher. The validity of the assignment itself was questioned, but the District Judge was justified in rejecting that plea as the assignor admitted the assignment.

(2.) The suit was brought for sale of the 1 defendant's rights in the mortgaged properties and the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit, the 1 defendant's interest being one-fourth share of the pLalnt properties as established in the preliminary decree for partition in a suit of 1897 brought by the 1 defendant as adopted son against the after-born natural son of his father. That decree for partition was dated in January 1902 and it decreed partition of the immoveable properties in A and B Schedules and of the moveables in C and D Schedules to the plaint. The 1 defendant transferred that portion of the decree which related to the immoveables in favour of one Seshamma and that transferee had kept alive at least her portion of the decree by successive applications till 19-4-1913, the present suit having been brought on the 23 June 1913.

(3.) The District Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the 1 defendant had lost all rights in the mortgaged properties, that is, the one-fourth share in the lands decreed to him under the partition decree by his having allowed that decree (so "far as the interests retained by him after assignment to Seshamma were concerned) by his not having made any application for the execution of that decree within the time prescribed by law. He further held that his rights were also barred by the adverse possession of the lands by his father's natural son.