(PAREPALLI) VENKATA KRISHNAYYA Vs. (CHAKKA) VENKATARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I cannot agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that issue 1 ought not to have been raised and does not call for decision. The written statement is no doubt not very clear, but when it is remembered that K. Bapayya was defendant 1's nephew and para. 3 of the written statement refers to the indebtedness of the defendants , family as having necessitated the first benami transfer, and to the plaintiff being defendant 1's brother-in-law, there can be no doubt that the plea intended to be raised was that these were nominal transfers for the benefit of the defendants. The later allegations in the written statement as to possession having continued with the defendants are directed to the same end. That neither party was under any misapprehension as to the effect or meaning of the allegations in the written statement is shown by the fact that issue 1 is clear enough. We may well presume that the issue was framed in the manner contemplated by law, after the Court has ascertained from the parties their respective contentions.

(2.) When the learned Subordinate Judge started with this view as to the propriety of raising issue 1, it will not be fair to treat a few observations made by him in that connexion as amounting to a finding on the issue. I do not wish to say more at this stage and merely propose to request the lower appellate Court to submit a finding on issue 1 on the evidence on record. Finding to be submitted by 30 July 1934. Seven days are allowed for objections. Mr. Satyanarayana Row contends that the plea raised by issue 1 is not open to the defendants. Even the determination of this question will in some measure depend on the evidence and I therefore content myself with saying that it will be open to the lower appellate Court to consider this aspect of the question as well.

(3.) In compliance with the above order, the Subordinate Judge of Guntur submitted the following.