KAMARAJU GADDA RAMAYYA Vs. SINGARAJU SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff to recover certain items of jeroyati lands in the Vallur zamindari. These lands were originally purchased in 1874 under Ex. A on behalf of Kala-patapu Venkatappayya by his mother and guardian Bapamma who is defendant 11 in this suit. In the sale deed he was described as aged eight. Till 1881 we find the properties were being enjoyed on behalf of the minor, Ex F is a cist receipt book and Ex. H is a khat dated 1881 taken in the name of the minor by defendant 11 and her father as guardian, and Ex. 1 is the corresponding muchilika in favour of the zamindar. The Subordinate Judge finds that the minor died at about this time and we agree with him. Between 1881 and 1892 we find receipts issued by dedant 11's brother Mallikarjunudu. In. 1892, Ex. 15 was executed by Mallikar-junndu in favour of the zamindar and a pattah was given, to him, Ex. 1- 0. In. 1903, we have got a muchilika executed in favour of Mallikarjunudu by tenants-and in 1905 we have got a khat Ex. H-2. This document is very important. This. was taken in favour of Mallikarjunudu, but the tenants promised to measure-out paddy to his sister Bapamma, defendant 11. This document shows undoubtedly that defendant 11 continues, to be in enjoyment of the lands as the-heir of her son and that her father and brother were merely acting as agents-between 1882. and 1905. In 1896,a simple mortgage deed was executed by Mallikarjunudu in respect of some item. This is Ex. 2. There is nothing to show that this was done to her knowledge and we must assume that it was done behind her back. The mortgagee filed a suit in. 1904 and obtained a decree. He brought it to sale in 1907. Then defendant 11 came to know of this and filed Ex. G complaining of the mortgage, decree and. sale.

(2.) The District Munsif merely directed that her claim should be notified to the-intending bidders. The property was purchased in Court auction by defendant. 5 Who passed it on to defendant 6. It, is now admitted that defendant 6 is in enjoyment. One or other of these defendants have been in enjoyment from 1907/ up to date of suit. Another item one acre in item 7, was sold in a rent sale and it passed ultimately to defendant 4 : vide Exs. 8 and 8-B. This suit was filed on, 11 March 1922. By that time these-two items have been in possession of the contesting defendants or their predecessors for more than 12 years. In 1913-defendant 11 executed a surrender Ex. B to her reversioner who is defendant 12; and he sold the property to one Ayyanna Sastrulu under Ex. C, who again sold it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, claiming title to the suit properties through the surrender and the sale deed that followed it, files this suit to recover possession-of the various item. Of the other items, items 1, 3, 4 and 8 are in the possession, of defendant 1 and his son defendant 2. Items 2 and 6 are the items already dealt with having been mortgaged under Ex. 2. Item 5 is in defendant 8's possession. He claims by purchase in execution of a Small Cause decree in 1913, but the sale certificate is not filed.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the surrender is not a valid surrender. The contention raised by the defendants that the original purchase in 1874 was itself benami for Mallikarjunudu was found against by the learned Subordinate Judge, In the result he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff appeals. So far as items 1. 3, 4 and 8 are concerned, defendant 1's advocate stated that he is instructed not to oppose the appeal. As will appear in the sequel on the finding that the sale deed of 1874 was not foenami and that defendant l's father Mallikarjunudu was merely managing the property on behalf of his sister defendant 11, there is really no further point to be argued in respect of these items. The appeal therefore will have to be allowed in respect of these items without further question.