ELAMARTY BANGARAYUDU Vs. MANGIPOODY PERAYYA SASTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We agree with the lower Courts in their conclusion that the appellants have not shown any title by virtue of the alleged gift by Antanna in favour of his grandsons Subbarayudu and Venkayya, on the strength of which plaintiff s claim can be resisted. We also think that no question arises of a partial alienation, because the grandsons had no power to alienate the property during the life-time of their mother. The only question that remains relates to the effect of the compromise in Original Suit No. 348 of 1886.

(2.) Before we can decide this second appeal we must call for a finding from the District Judge upon the questions raised in paragraph 10 of the written statement of defendants Nos. 5 to 9 and paragraph 11 of the 4th defendant s written statement which we think are covered by the 3rd issue but have not been considered by the lower Courts.

(3.) In Original Suit No. 348 of 1886 there was a compromise of the suit brought by the purchasers under Exhibit I, who are the predecessors-in-title of defendants Nos. 5 and 7, by which Garakamma and her son Venkatachala-pati consented to the plaintiffs in that suit retaining the enjoyment of 5 acres 7 cents of the suit lands; but the lower Courts have not decided whether that compromise was a bona fide settlement of a doubtful claim and. whether any other nearer reversioner than Venkatachalapati who might have been consulted was alive at the time.