MATHUKUMALLI RAMAYYA Vs. UPPALAPATI LAKSHMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals from a decree of the High Court of Madras dated 1 October 1937, on appeals from the Additional Subordinate Judge of Guntur which have been consolidated and heard together. The appeals arise out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of immovable properties, as the nearest reversioner to the estate of one Ramachandrudu on the death of his widow Achamma in 1926, on the ground that the properties appertaining to the estate had been wrongfully alienated partly by his mother and partly by his widow. The defendants are the alienees or their successors in title. Generally stated, they may be roughly grouped as those claiming under alienations made by the mother, and those claiming under alienations made by the widow. The suit related to 16 items of properties of which items 11 to 14 and 16 were claimed on the footing that they had been acquired with the income of the estate subsequent to Ramachandrudu's death and must be treated as accretions to that estate. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim to those items as unsustainable. The case as regards them is not now before the Board; nor is the case as regards items 1, 3 and a portion of item 7, which was compromised by the parties in the trial Court. Ramachandrudu was a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara law. He died, as has now been found, in 1859, leaving surviving him his mother Bengaramma, a young widow Achamma and a sister Ramamma. Bengaramma died in 1878. Soon after Ramachandrudu's death there appears to have been an arrangement effected on 16 October 1859, between Achamma and Bengaramma under which Achamma was given Rs. 100 and a remainder in inam lands in two villages after Bengaramma's death and the latter took absolutely the rest of the properties of Ramachandrudu.

(2.) On 17 March 1866, Bengaramma executed a registered deed conveying the properties which she obtained under the above arrangement to her daughter's son Subbaramayya. This deed recited the terms of the arrangement of 1859, and Bengaramma stated in it that she had delivered that deed to her grandson "so that it might serve as a title deed." This deed has not been produced. Defendants 1 to 8 are the descendants of Subbaramayya and of his brother Velugondarayudu. Subsequently, disputes were raised by Achamma regarding the title to the properties in the possession of Subbaramayya, and as a result, a settlement was effected between them by mediators, by the execution of two documents on 13 August 1867, under which Achamma got absolute title to a 1/3 share of the properties covered by the deed of 17 March 1866, and Subbaramayya to a 2/3 share. In 1876 Achamma sold away her 1/3 share and the defendants now in possession of those properties hold them under the title derived from her. In their written statements the defendants disputed the relationship of the plaintiff as the nearest reversioner and contended that Ramachandrudu was not the last male holder, he according to them having predeceased his father. On both points the Additional Subordinate Judge of Guntur found in favour of the plaintiff. He also found that Ramachandrudu died in or about the middle of 1859. These findings were accepted in the High Court and have not been questioned before the Board. The High Court expressed the view that Ramachandrudu must have died on some date between May a October, 1859.

(3.) The defendants also contended in the course of arguments that immediately on the death of Ramachandrudu, Bengaramma took possession of all his properties which had legally vested in Achamma, that the possession thus taken was hostile to Achamma, that "she and her transferees were in possession for over 12 years before the Limitation Act of 1871 took effect, i.e., before 1 April 1873" and "so under the provisions of S. 1, R. 12, Limitation Act 14 of 1859, the right of Achamma as also the right of persons representing the reversion became barred and the right which became extinct prior to 1 April 1873, cannot be revived under the Act of 1871." The plea in this form was not pointedly raised in the written statements. In conformity with this plea the issue on the question of limitation was amended and the plea was accepted by the Additional Subordinate Judge with the result that he dismissed the plaintiff's suit as barred under Act 14 of 1859, but only with regard to 2/3 of the suit properties; as in his view "possession which started as hostile to Achamma immediately after her husband's death as regards all the properties became restricted to a 2/3 from the date of Ex. 3"-the settlement effected with Achamma. As regards the 1/3 share allotted to Achamma, subsequently alienated by her, the plaintiff was given a decree on the ground that the alienations were not justified by any legal necessity. It may be mentioned here that issue 4 in the case raised the question "whether the family settlement of 1859 and 67 pleaded by the defendants are true, valid and binding on the plaintiff." As in his opinion the suit was not in time, the Additional Subordinate Judge held it was unnecessary to find on this and some connected issues except as to the genuineness of the settlements of 1859 and 67 which he stated was "beyond cavil." Their genuineness has been accepted throughout; but the correct inference to be drawn from them, as will be shown presently, has been the subject of considerable arguments before the High Court as well as before the Board. From the Additional Subordinate Judge's decree, two appeals were filed before the High Court, one by the plaintiff and the other by the contesting defendants affected by the decree relating to 1/3 of the properties.