ANKULA SANYASI Vs. GUNDALA RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this second appeal may be stated as follows:--One Gundala Jagannatha Rao died sometime before 1859. He was succeeded by his daughter, Sitamma. He had a brother, Gundala Venkataramadas, who had died before him and left a widow, Venkamma. In 1862 there was some dispute between these two ladies which resulted in a suit and a compromise. Exhibit A evidences the settlement of that suit. According to this compromise Sitamma was to get two-thirds of all properties including the debts due to the estate and bear two-thirds, of the liabilities of the estate and Venkamma was to get the other one-third share. In 1882 Sitamma mortgaged the suit properties to one Mokka Sanyasamma. It purported, to be for discharging a prior debt due by her to one Kamma Appadu. The purpose of the debt to Kamma Appadu was not stated. In 1888 the mortgagee brought a suit against Sitamma on the basis of Ex. II and obtained a decree. The defendant did not appear in that suit. Exhibit III is the decree. While execution was being taken out, Kodanda Rao, 1 plaintiff's father, claiming as reversioner filed a claim petition under Section 278, Order C. P. C. alleging that Sitamma being possessed of lands fetching a net cist of about Rs. 100 a year, had no necessity to incur debts binding on the estate and praying that the life-interest only of the widow may be sold. The District Munsif without going into the claim petition dismissed it on the ground that the sale proclamation had already been settled. This sale proclamation is not forthcoming. The property was ultimately sold only in 1892. In the last column of the sale proclamation of 1892, there was a statement that the debt was one for discharging all the debts contracted by defendant's father for family expenses and for defendant's maintenance and that the whole right of the defendant was to be sold in auction. The present suit has been filed by the reversioners in January 1918 for recovery of the property sold in 1892.

(2.) Meanwhile the property was purchased by the decree-holder in the auction and was afterwards sold to the present defendant by a sale-deed, Ex. VII, dated the 9 of April 1913. The 4 issue in the case is: "Was the mortgage made for legal necessity and are the sales in execution binding on the estate"?

(3.) The District Munsif found on this issue in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. On appeal the Subordinat e Judge confirmed the decision of the District Munsif. The 1 defendant files this second appeal.