MANJAYA SANNAYA SHANBHOG Vs. SHESHGIRI SHAMBHULING UPADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The genealogical table showing the necessary relationship is given at page 3 of the print. One Subbaya had two sons, Timanna and Puttaya. Timmanna adopted as his son one Narayan. Narayan died before 1873, leaving a widow Timmamma In 1873 the four sons of Puttaya, the brother of Timmanna, one named Sannaya alias Subbaya by his first wife, and three named Shambhulinga, Timmanna and Subbaya, by his second wife, were alive In 1873 Timmamma, the widow of Narayan, alienated the whole of her estate to Shambhulinga. Shambhulinga afterwards sold these properties to different persons by different sale deeds. Three of the sale deeds executed in 1877 by Shambhulinga in favour of the purchasers from him were attested by Subbaya, the step-brother of Shambhulinga. These alienees obtained possession of these properties and continued in possession until the death of Timmamma in April 1913. At the time of her death the reversioners were the two sons of Subbaya, namely, Manjaya and Krishnaya, and Venkatraman, the son of Timmanna as shown in the pedigree. Ganpati, the brother of Venkatraman, had died before that date. Manjaya filed the present suit in 1919 as a reversioner claiming possession of these properties on the ground that the alienation made by the widow in favour of Shambhulinga was not for legal necessity and ceased to be operative on the death of the widow. The transferee of his interests joined with him as plaintiff No. 2.

(2.) The defendants are several alienees from Shambhulinga and the two other reversioners, namely, Krishnaya and Venkatraman. The defence of the alienees was that the sale by the widow to Shambhulinga was for legal necessity and with the consent of all the reversioners at the date of the sale.

(3.) The trial Court raised several issues Two of them are material for our present purpose. Issue No. 4. was: "Were the alienations for legal necessity?" The finding was in the negative. Issue No. 11 was: "Is it proved that the alienations in question were made with the consent of the next reversioners?" The learned Judge was satisfied that the alienations by the widow in favour of Shambhulinga were not for legal necessity, but he came to the conclusion that they were with the consent of all the brothers of Shambhulinga including Sannaya and that it was for their common benefit. This conclusion is based uponthe circumstance that Sannaya attested three of the sale deeds passed by Shambhulinga to the purchasers from him. It appears from the judgment ofthe trial Court, and it cannot be disputed, that there is no other evidence in the case either with regard to the consent of all the reversioners at the date of the alienation by the widow or that this alienation was for the common benefit of all the then reversioners. It is not suggested in the present case that there was any consent of the actual reversioners, that is, of the plaintiff and defendants Nos 14 and 15, who were the reversioners when the reversion opened. The trial Court dismissed the suit with costs on the ground that in view of his finding, the transaction by the widow was to be treated as acceleration of the reversion and as the surrender of the entire estate for the benefit of all the then reversioners although in the name of Shambhulinga alone.