YELLAVAJJHULA SURAYYA Vs. TUMMALAPALLI MANGAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant sued for recovery of possession of certain properties on the footing that as reversionary heir to the estate of one Surayya who died sometime between 1880 and 1888 he had become entitled to possession on the death of Surayya's widow on 20 September 1929. The plaint schedules specified several items of properties. As regards some of them the lower Court has passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour. As regards other items the suit has been dismissed. The present appeal is concerned with items 1 to 6 of the plaint, Schedule A and items 1 and 2 of the plaint, Schedule B. Alternatively, there is a claim for items 22 to 24 of the plaint, Schedule A if the Court should hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim possession of items 1 to 6.

(2.) The claim to items 1 and 2 of Schedule B may be briefly disposed of. The lower Court found that the plaintiff had not proved that these items belonged to the last male holder. There is only the general assertion of the plaintiff from the witness box that all the plaint properties belonged to the estate of the last male holder; it is perhaps possible to explain the absence of more detailed information as regards items 1 and 2 of the plain Schedule B on the ground that the defendants interested therein were not contesting the suit. But whatever the reason for such absence may be, we do not find that there is sufficient material on record to justify our dissenting from the conclusion of the lower Court on this point. An attempt was made before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant to connect these items with certain items referred to by the widow as her husband's property in Ex. A-9. This attempt merely rested upon a presumed identity of the boundaries in Exs. A-9, X-f and X-g. But even this identity is not clear in the absence of information as to changes in the names of the owners of the neighbouring properties and as no evidence has been given in the Court below as to these neighbouring owners it does not seem to us right to act upon mere speculation and hold that the attempt at identification has succeeded. The decree of the lower, Court must therefore be confirmed so far as items 1 and 2 of Schedule B are concerned.

(3.) As regards items 22 to 24 of the plaint Schedule A, the lower Court found that their alienation under Ex. III-b was justified and proper. We shall refer to this matter again when dealing with the title to items 1 to 6; but we may at this stage express our concurrence in the finding of the lower Court as to the validity of Ex. III-b. The claim to these items is however only an alternative claim, as already stated; and as we propose to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of items 1 to 6, it is unnecessary to say more about items 22 to 24 except that the appeal as regards these items fails. Items 1 to 6, to which the arguments on both sides were mainly directed, have been held by the lower Court not to have formed part of Surayya's estate at his death. It is somewhat difficult to reconcile this conclusion of the learned subordinate Judge with his observations in other portions of his judgment. We start with the fact that items 1 to 8 were purchased by Surayya under Ex. A-5 on 25 May 1880 from his father-in-law for a stated consideration of Rs. 700. Items & to 6 admittedly belonged to Surayya already. These six items wore transferred by Surayya to one Sriramulu under Ex. IV and on 27 May 1880 for a sum of Rs. 400. To complete the narrative, we may add that these six items came back to the widow under Ex. IV-b on 23 January 1884. The widow's father was no doubt also a transferee under Ex. IV-b but the learned subordinate Judge has found, and we agree with him, that even from the terms of Ex. IV-b it is clear that the father's name was introduced only as a matter of convenience at the widow's request and no beneficial interest belonged to the father. Surayya having died between the dates of Exs. IV and IV-b, it becomes important to know the exact legal operation of these two documents before determining whether at the date of Surayya's death these items were in any sense part of his estate and were acquired by the widow as part of his estate or they had ceased to belong to the estate and were independently acquired by the widow.