(GARAPATI) BULLIRAJU Vs. (GARAPAHI) BUTCHI SEETAYYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants. Defendant 1 is the widow of one Subbarayudu who died on 21 March 1919 leaving a will which is alleged to have been executed on 10 March 1919. It is conceded that this will gave the widow absolute rights. The next reversioners filed O.S. No. 50 of 1920, for a declaration that the will which was set up by the widow, defendant 1, was a forgery. The suit was filed on 19 November 1920. Ex. B is the proceedings in that suit and it appears from the diary of the proceedings that the suit was on 25 July 1922 withdrawn by the plaintiffs unconditionally, each party bearing his own costs. It appears also that from 3 March there was a talk of compromise. We find from the diary that some adjustment was hoped for on 3 March. Then on 29 April we find an entry A compromise is hoped for. On request the suit is allowed to stand over to 10 July 1922." Then there is a note on 10 July, "as some time is requested for settlement, it is adjourned to 25 July," and on the 25 the note is: the plaintiffs withdraw the suit. Defendant 2 signed the petition. The pleader for defendants 1 and 2 do not press for costs. The suit is dismissed without costs.

(2.) The compromise petition Ex. 1 runs as follows: Now that, subsequently, to the suit, we learn that the said will of the late Subbarayudu is just, genuine and one executed when he was in a state of sound sense and as such it is enforceable in every respect we hereby with draw the said suit (para. 2).

(3.) This is a statement which really admits the will to be genuine, valid and enforceable so that the plaintiff gave up the whole of their case as set up in their plaint. The present plaintiffs are the next presumptive reversioners who have filed this suit for a declaration that the will is not genuine. They state that they are entitled to sue as the next immediate reversioners defendants 2 to 6 who by receipt of money from defendant 1 admitted the genuineness of the will and withdrew the suit, precluded themselves from disputing the genuineness by their conduct. Various issues were raised, but the Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue.