LAKKARAJU ANANDARAO Vs. YELLAMRAJU VENKATASUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lands described in the plaint belonged to the last male holder Lakshmayya, who died about 20 years prior to the suit, leaving his widow the second defendant, and a daughter Subbamma, the mother of the plaintiff and the third defendant. On Lakshmayya's death, the 2nd defendant inherited the property. The daughter of the 2nd defendant (the mother of the plaintiff and the 3 defendant) died a year after Lakshmayya's death. The plaintiff and the 3 defendant as the daughter's sons of the late Lakshmayya are the nearest reversioners to the estate of Lakshmayya. On 20 November, 1918, the 2nd defendant sold the suit properties to the 1 defendant for Rs. 1,500; the chief item of debt incurred by the 2nd defendant to discharge which she sold the properties to the 1 defendant was thus described in the sale deed: Rs. 885-1-8, being the debt contracted by me and by my eldest grandson Suryapragasa Rao (3 defendant) for our family expenses and for the Upanayanam and the marriage of Ananda Rao (the plaintiff), one of my daughter's sons under my protection.

(2.) The plaintiff was a minor at the time of the sale, and he instituted the present suit on 22nd September, 1922, for a declaration that the sale-deed would not in any way affect his reversionary right in the property.

(3.) Defendants 2 and 3 did not appear. The 1 defendant, the alienee, pleaded that the sale was made for legal necessity and was binding on the plaintiff, that the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant were under the protection of the 2nd defendant, and that the plaintiff was even at the time of the suit living with the 2nd defendant. He contended that the property was sold to him by the 2nd defendant for discharging the debts incu(sic) her for the maintenance, education, Upanayanam, and marriage expenses of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff equally with the 3 defendant was estopped from questioning the same.