SRI RAJAH VYRICHERLA VEERABHADRARAJU BAHADUR GARU (DEAD)AND SRI SURYANARAYANASWAMI REPRESENTED BY DHARMAKARTA THE 2ND DEFENDANT SINCE DECEASED Vs. DASIRAJU VENKATACHELAPATI RAO GARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit in which this appeal has arisen relates to the Chemndu Estate, a small partible Zamindari in the District of Vizagapatam.

(2.) The 1st plaintiff is the purchaser at Court auction held in execution of a money-decree obtained by one Jogayya against the 1st defendant, 5th defendant add one Sarika Appandhora on the 14th of August 1896, He claims by virtue of this purchase to be entitled to the equity of redemption of the Zamindari and also to the right to certain moneys payable out of the Zamindari. The 2nd plaintiff Jagannatha Rao, who is the father of the 1st plaintiff, has been added as he is alleged to be beneficially interested in the purchase. The first defendant who died pending the suit and is represented by his widows (defendants Nos. 7 and 8) and sons (defendants Nos. 9 and 10), succeeded to the Zamindari of Chemudu on the death of his adoptive father Chandraraju on the 21st of January 1888. The 2nd defendant, who died pending this appeal and who is now represented by the 3rd defendant, is the Zamindar of Kuruppam. His father, who played the most important part on one side in the transactions which culminated in the present suit, died sometime in 1891. The 2nd defendent was then a miror and the Kuruppam Zamindari was taken possession of by the Court of Wands, and it continued to be in their possession until the 2nd defendant attained majority sometime in 1898. The contest with respect to the Zamindari is now entirely between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the 2nd defendant on the other. The 1st defendant, who was the last Chemudu Zamindar, had no more rights left in this estate, and he claimed only a certain annuity payable out of the income of the Zamindari. The plaintiffs seek to redeem the Zamindari from the 2nd defendant on payment of such amounts, if any, that may be found due to him under a usufructuary mortgage, dated the 29th of June 1878 (Exhibit II). alleging at the same time that that mortgage has been satisfied out of the rents and profits of the properties received by the 2nd defendant. They also claim in the alternative that, if it be found that the sale-deed executed in favour of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant on the 12th of March 1889 is real and binding on the plaintiffs, then the 2nd defendant be directed to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 1,200 annually and the arrears for 12 years, amounting to Rs. 14,400, and a further sum of Rs. 42,350.10.8 with subsequent interest. In default of payment of the above sums the plaintiffs ask that the 2nd defendant s rights be foreclosed and the property delivered to them or that it be sold and the amounts due to them paid out of the sale-proceeds. The plaintiffs claim the annuity of Rs. 1,200 with arrears for 12 years and the sum of Rs. 42,350.10.8 by virtue of their purchase at the Court auction, the former as representing the rights of the 1st defendant and the latter on account of the rights which it is alleged the other, judgment-debtor Sarika Appandhora had under an instrument (Exhibit F), dated the 19th of January 1888.

(3.) It will thus be seen that the first and most important question for trial relates to the legal effect of the sale-deed, dated the 12th of March 1889, executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant, namely, whether it was a merely nominal document not intended to be given effect to as contended by the plaintiffs. If that question be answered against the plaintiffs, the only other question for determination would be whether they are entitled to the sums of money as claimed by them.