GUDIA DULLABHO SAHU Vs. CINNI ADINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises a question of court-fee. A few facts may be necessary for the disposal of the same. Defendant 1's grandfather was entitled as reversioner of one Cinni Errayya to certain properties and he filed a suit for recovery of the same as reversioner.

(2.) All the properties which appertain to the estate of Cinni Errayya are described in Schedule A to the plaint in this action. While the litigation was pending, defendant 2 in this suit who was financing the plaintiff in the said litigation in consideration of the advances made by him obtained a transfer of two-third share in all the properties which defendant 1's family would obtain as a result of the said litigation. Defendant 1's grandfather succeeded in the suit and an appeal was preferred against the said decision to this High Court. While the appeal was pending, a certain arrangement took place on 26 January 1927 between the plaintiff and the father of defendant 1 who had succeeded to the estate by virtue of his father's death. The arrangement was this: Both the plaintiff and the father of defendant 1 should buy out defendant 2 by paying Rs. 7,500 and get a transfer of the two-third share which defendant 2 was entitled to under the sale in his favour; after getting the said transfer the property should be sold except 3 acres 73 cents being items 10, 11, 13 and 36 in Schedule A and the plaintiff and the father of defendant 1 should enjoy the profit resulting from the said sale in equal shares. The reason why 3 acres 73 cents of land was omitted is that the plaintiff purchased from some of the defendants in the reversionary suit the said property and obtained possession and was in possession of the same on the date of the said arrangement. But somehow the arrangement of 26 January 1927 was not carried into effect and defendant 1's father died. The appeal in the High Court was settled by a compromise in and by which among other things the title of defendant 1's family was declared and established. At any rate from the plaint it appears that defendant 1's family was ultimately declared the owner of all the properties left by Cinni Errayya. As I stated above, the arrangement of 26 January 1927 was not given effect to and both defendants 1 and 2 also sold some of the properties which formed the basis of the said arrangement.

(3.) In consequence whereof, the plaintiff, defendant 1's guardian on behalf of defendant 1 and defendant 2 entered into an arrangement in regard to the properties which were left undisposed of, viz. both defendants 1 and 2 should retain certain items: defendant 1 should retain one-third share in certain items which are specifically described in Schedule C to the plaint; defendant 2 should transfer all his interests in the remaining properties to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 6,088 which properties are now specifically described in Schedule D hereto. It was also a part of the said arrangement that in the 3 acres 73 cents which also formed part of Schedule D property excluding the two-third which had to be conveyed to the plaintiff under this arrangement, defendant 1 also should relinquish his one-third share so that the plaintiff may get a complete title in respect of the entire 3 acres 73 cents possession whereof had been disturbed by the decree of the High Court.