T SRINIVASA RAO Vs. ANNADHANAM SESHACHARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the sale of a house and lands (Ex. X) executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the 3rd defendant is not binding on the plaintiffs beyond the lifetime of the 1 defendant. The 1 defendant is the daughter of one Tirupati Ramarao who died without any male issue leaving him surviving his widow Janaki Bai and his daughter the 1st defendant. The case for the plaintiffs is that the suit properties belonged to Ramarao and devolved on Janaki Bai by right of inheritance and on her death, on the plaintiffs and that the said alienation by the 1 defendant was not for any legal necessity. The case for the defendants is that the property was the absolute property of Janaki Bai, that she gifted it to the 1 defendant in or about 1904, that ever since the said date she had been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and acquired title thereto by adverse possession. The 1st defendant also pleaded that the said sale was made for discharging a prior mortgage which was executed for a necessary purpose, namely, for discharging certain debts incurred for repairs to the house, for medical treatment and for obsequial ceremonies of her mother and for the marriage expenses of her daughter's daughter. She also denied that plaintiffs are the reversioners. The learned District Munsif found that the plaintiffs are the reversioners of Ramarao and also of Janaki Bai, that the property belonged to Janaki Bai, that though the property was gifted to the 1 defendant in 1904, she did not acquire title thereto by adverse possession because Janaki Bai died within twelve years before succession opened, that the mortgage for the discharge of which the sale was executed was valid only to the extent of Rs. 600 on the ground that that sum must be deemed to have been spent towards the necessary expenses binding on the estate and that the balance of Rs. 1,200 spent for the marriage expenses of her daughter's daughter was not a legal necessity and that the said sale was therefore binding upon the plaintiffs only to the extent of Rs. 600. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the finding as to the status of the plaintiffs as the reversioners of Janaki Bai and also in regard to the question of adverse possession. He upheld the sale in its entirety on the ground that the amount borrowed for the marriage of the daughter's daughter of the 1 defendant was for a necessary purpose. He took the view that the marriage of the daughter's daughter was a proper religious object which would conduce to the spiritual benefit of the 1 defendant's father Rama Rao and her mother Janaki Bai.

(2.) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs and on their behalf their learned Counsel Mr. Bhujanga Rao contended that the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge in regard to the expenses incurred towards the 1 defendant's daughter's daughter's marriage was wrong and that, in any event, the amount borrowed was excessive. The questions therefore to be decided are, (1) was the amount borrowed for the expenses of the said marriage for a necessary purpose so as to bind the estate, and (2) was the amount of Rs. 1,200 spent in connection therewith proper and justifiable if not, what is the reasonable amount that can be allowed?

(3.) Before dealing with these questions, I shall deal with the argument of Mr. Venugopalachari on the finding of the lower Court in regard to the question of adverse possession. He contended that the finding was wrong and if it was decided in his favour, the decree of the lower Court could be supported on that ground. He put his argument thus : long before succession opened the property was gifted away by Janaki Bai to the 1 defendant and from the date of the gift the 1st defendant was dealing with the property in her own right and when Janaki Bai died she did not take the property as her heir but continued to hold it adversely to the estate and no suit having been filed within 12 years from the date of the gift, she acquired title thereto by adverse possession after the lapse of the said period. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Varada Pillai V/s. Jeevarathnammal (1919) 38 M.L.J. 313 : L.R. 46 I.A. 285 : I.L.R. 43 Mad. 244 (P.C.), and a decision of this Court reported in Alagiri Chetty V/s. Muthusami Chetty (1940) 50 L.W. 571. On principle it seems to me that the contention is untenable. On the death of Janaki Bai the property vested in the 1 defendant by right of inheritance. Under the Hindu law, succession cannot remain in abeyance and whether the heir at law wills or not, the property will vest in him. Before the title to the suit property was perfected by adverse possession by the first defendant, the property vested in her. The legal consequence of that vesting is that the adverse possession which was running against the owner came to an end. The first defendant became the owner and adverse possession could not run against herself. In Varada Pillai V/s. Jeevarathnammal (1919) 38 M.L.J. 313 : L.R. 46 I.A. 285 : I.L.R. 43 Mad. 244 (P.C.), the facts were as follows. Gopalakrishna Pillai and Parthasarathi Pillai owned mitta in equal shares. Gopalakrishna died leaving his widow Rajammal and Parthasarathi Pillai died leaving his widow Alangarammal to whom he bequeathed absolutely his share in the said mitta. The whole mitta was registered in the names of both Rajammal and Alangarammal. On 10 October, 1895 two petitions were presented to the Collector of Chingleput, one by Alangarammal and the other by Rajammal, stating that each had gifted away the share in the mitta to which each was entitled to Duraisani Ammal on the 8 October, 1895 and that therefore the mitta might be transferred in her name. This was accordingly done and ever since that date until the date of her death in 1911, Duraisani Ammal enjoyed the property and was in receipt of rents and profits solely. Rajammal died in 1901 and Alangarammal died in 1912, a year after Duraisani Ammal's death. Duraisani left a daughter Jeevarathnammal who succeeded to her property. The plaintiffs who were the reversioners of Parthasarathi Pillai and his widow Alangarammal sued to recover a half share of the mitta. Among other pleas Jeevarathnammal pleaded that Duraisani Ammal acquired title to that share by adverse possession. This plea was upheld by their Lordships of the Privy Council. They took the view that the gift was invalid on the ground that it was not made in conformity with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act but Duraisani must be deemed to have enjoyed the property adversely to both Rajammal and Alangarammal from the date of the gift and that as by the date of her death in December, 1911, twelve years had elapsed, the claim of Alangarammal and therefore of her heirs, the plaintiffs, was barred by adverse possession. It was contended before their Lordships that when Rajammal died in 1901 Duraisani succeeded to her moiety by right of inheritance and therefore her possession from that date must be deemed to have been as a co- owner and that the possession of Duraisani as such co-owner could not be adverseto Alangarammal or her heirs. This contention was negatived by their Lordships and they remarked thus: In the present case it is plain that during the life of Rajammal the possession of Duraisani was adverse as against both co-owners; and this being so, there is no reason for holding that when on the death of Rajammal she became legally entitled to a moiety of the property, the character of her possession of the other moiety as against Alangarammal was changed. There having been an ouster of Alangarammal before the death of Rajammal, this ouster continued after her death, and the possession of Duraisani was adverse to Alangarammal throughout. This contention therefore also fails.