POTHUKUCHI RAJAGOPALAN Vs. VALIVETY RAMAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be decided in. this appeal is, whether a decree obtained against the daughter of the last male holder operates as a bar to the present suit filed by the plaintiffs after the death of the surviving daughter, as reversioners to the estate. The following pedigree will elucidate the facts:

(2.) After Venkatasubbanna's death Pullamma was in possession of the property. She died about the year 1866 and there were disputes in regard to the right to the estate of Veukatasubbanna between Rajagopalan on tin one hand and Venkatasubbamma and Venkatanarasama on the other. The disputes were settled by the intervention of mediators in 1872 and Exhibit A called Farrikkat bearing the date 5 June 1875 was executed embodying the terms of the settlement. According to Exhibit A each of the daughters was to take 14 acres of land and Rajagopalan 38 acres and odd. Notwithstanding this arrangment, Pullamn as daughters obtained an entry in their names in the Revenue Register. Rajah Gopalan institued Original Suit No. 87 of 1883 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Ellore for possession of the 38 acres and odd. Venkatasubbamma was impleaded as the first defendant and Venkatanarasamma having died, her son, the present fifth plaintiff, was made the second defendant. As he was a minor his father was appointed his guardian ad litem. Vonkatasubhamma contested the suit. The District Munsif dismissed it. Rajagopalan appealed. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and passed a decree in his favour. Venkatasubbamtna preferred a second appeal and the High Court confirmed the decree of the first Appellate Court.

(3.) In 1890 the father of plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 instituted Original Suit No. 107 of 1890 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Ellore aginst Rajagopalan's son Venkayya against Venkatasubbamma and the present plaintiff Nos. 1 and 5 for a declaration that the alienation of the aforsaid 38 acres and odd by the daughters of Venkatasubbamma in favour of Rajagopalan was invalid after the death of the daughters. The District Munsif found that the Farrikkat was supported, by consideration, that it was a fair compromise, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The Appellate Court upheld the dismissal on the ground of limitation but gave no finding on the question whether the Farrikkat was binding upon the plaintiff in that suit and the other reversioners. A second appeal was preferred and the High Court also dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation.