PENTA GOVINDU Vs. MEDIDA VENKATAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal relates to the succession to the estate of one Penta Kondayya, who died about the year 1880. He was survived by his wife Paddamma alias Papamma, who lived until the 1st September, 1926. The first appellant avers that he is the reversioner to the estate and has assigned to the second appellant a half share of the reversionary rights claimed by him. On the 23 August, 1938, the appellants filed in the Court of the District Munsiff of Peddapuram, the present suit for possession of Kondayya's estate, which according to them consists of 30.83 acres of dry land in Peddapuram and 5.94 acres of wet land in Kattamuru. The first plaintiff's son was in possession of 20 acres of the dry lands and he was made the first defendant in the suit. The rest of the dry lands were in the possession of defendants 2 to 4. On the 25 April, 1883, the widow sold to her brother M. Kondayya, all the wet lands for a sum of Rs. 100.. On the 15 May, 1891, M. Kondayya conveyed by deed of gift a half of the wet lands to his brother, Polayya. M. Kondayya and Polayya are dead. M. Kondayya is represented by his sons the fifth and sixth defendants and Polayya by his sons and grandson, his sons being the second and third defendants and his grandson the fourth defendant.

(2.) The District Munsiff dismissed the suit. He held that it had not been established that the first plaintiff was the nearest reversioner to the estate and that it had not been proved that the lands in suit had belonged to Kondayya. The plaintiffs appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Coconada who reversed both these findings. He granted a decree for possession of the dry lands but refused relief in respect of the wet lands as he considered that there was nothing to show under what circumstances the widow had conveyed these lands to her brother, M. Kondayya. and that it was to be presumed that the alienation was for a necessary purpose.

(3.) The plaintiffs have appealed against the dismissal of their claim for possession: of the wet lands. Defendants 2 to 4 have filed a memorandum of cross-objections in which they say that the Subordinate Judge erred in holding that the first plaintiff was the nearest reversioner to Kondayya's estate and that Kondayya died possessed of the dry lands in suit. This being a second appeal, the findings of the Subordinate Judge on questions of fact are binding on us, provided, of course, that there is evidence to support them, which is the case here.