KATTAMANCHI KRISHNA REDDY Vs. THOTA RAMAKRISHNAYYA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Appeal, the second defendant is the appellant and the plaintiff the respondent. The suit was filed to declare the sale of the shrotriyam village of Vasudevapuram in May 1911, for arrears of revenue, void on the ground that it was made during plaintiff's minority and therefore opposed to Regulation X of 1831.

(2.) The plaintiff alleged that the village originally belonged to the plaintiff's family as joint family property and that it fell to plaintiff's father's share in a partition. When the father died in 1905, the plaintiff became sole owner. The second defendant admitted that the village belonged to the joint family consisting of plaintiff's father and others but denied the partition and that the plaintiff became the sole owner in 1905. The first issue was framed with reference to this plea.

(3.) In appeal, he wishes to argue that the property did not belong exclusively to plaintiff's family. According to his present suggestion, the plaintiff's family owned only 3/14 share in the village and the appellant filed new documents to substantiate his plea. Having regard to his admission in the written statement, we do not think this plea should be allowed to be raised at this stage. We say nothing on the merits of this plea.