BHALLAMUDI KAMA SASTRI Vs. THIRUMAMIDI KANNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit is a speculative suit. Both the Lower Courts have dismissed it, and, after carefully hearing the arguments of the learned vakil for the appellant, I am satisfied that the decision reached by the Lower Courts is correct.

(2.) One Vizanna died in 1888 leaving his widow Lingamma and two daughters, Kannamma and Sitamma. Sitamma predeceased her mother and we are not concerned with her. Lingamma died in January, 1914. During her lifetime, she made two sales and the present suit has been instituted questioning their validity. On the 8 of October 1890 Lingamma sold what is described as one and one- fourth vrithi (share) to one Garimilla Kurmayya (Ex. VI). The consideration for the sale is stated in the deed to be Rs. 500. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the sale can be upheld only to the extent of Rs. 207-12-0, one of the three items of consideration mentioned in the conveyance. The second transaction impeached is that evidenced, dated 20 March, 1894, by Ex. VI-A. The widow sold another one-fourth vrithi and house-site to the father of defendants 2 and 3. The deed mentions that the consideration was Rs. 500, but the learned Subordinate Judge has held that no part of it was utilised for any purpose which would be binding on the estate. These are the two transactions questioned by the plaintiff.

(3.) On the death of Lingamma, Kannamma, her daughter, the first defendant in the suit, executed in favour of the plaintiff a sale deed dated the 10 May, 1914, conveying to him such rights as she possessed in the suit properties (Ex. A). The sale deed was taken obviously with a view to file a suit and recover the properties from the possession of the vendees or their representatives.