Kudappa Sotharamayya vs Rongala Samudrudu and Others

Devadoss, J.—The first point urged for the appellant is that under Ex. 1 only a widow''s life-interest was conveyed. This point was not

raised in the Courts below and considering the way in which it was dealt with by the Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal in the first instance,

it is quite clear that this contention was never thought of. The second issue remitted to the First Court by the Subordinate Judge is; ""Are the

alienations, sale and mortgage of items Nos. 2 and 1 of the plaint schedule respectively made for necessary purposes or are otherwise binding on

plaintiffs?"" It is quite clear from this that the parties went to trial on the footing that the alienation was an alienation of the property itself and not that

of the life-interest of the widow. I do not think considering the way in which the case was fought out in Courts below that I should allow this point

to be raised in second appeal.

The second point urged by Mr. Suryanarayana is that Ex. I does not amount to a surrender. It is in evidence that there is some other property

belonging to the widow as is evidenced by Ex. III The widow did not make a surrender of all her property and in the absence of evidence of the

surrender of her whole interest, it cannot be a valid surrender when it only affects partially the property she got from her husband; in other words,

she must thoroughly efface herself in order that her act might amount to a Surrender. This point no doubt is in favour of the appellant. But the

Subordinate Judge has disposed of the appeal on the finding that the alienation was for purposes binding on the reversioners. As has been

contended by Mr. Somasundaram, there is no finding that the consideration for the sale as recited in Ex. I did pass. But what the Subordinate

Judge has found is that the plaintiff was the writer of the document Ex. I and the sale was in favour of his two brothers. From that he infers the

consent of the nearest reversioners. It is admitted that the plaintiff and his two brothers were the only nearest reversioners at the time Ex. I was

executed. From that the learned Subordinate Judge infers that their consent must raise the presumption that the transaction was for a purpose

which would bind the reversioners. I am not satisfied with his reasoning that a person who takes a sale-deed from a widow gives such a consent as

to make the sale valid. In order that his consent may be of any value he should not either directly or indirectly be the vendee. Where the vendees

are some of the reversioners it cannot be said that they give their consent to the sale by taking a sale-deed from the widow. But the matter does

not stop there. Mr. Somasundaram for the respondent has drawn my attention to the statement of the plaintiff in his evidence that at the time of Ex.

I he and his brothers were undivided. Evidently the property was taken for the benefit of the whole family. If that is so, the plaintiff should not be

allowed to impeach the transaction under which he himself got the benefit. But it is unnecessary for me to discuss the evidence as the Subordinate

Judge has found on the evidence that the transaction was one which was binding upon the reversioners. This being a question of fact though I am

not quite satisfied with the reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge I do not think I should interfere with it in second appeal.

In the result the second appeal fails adn is dismissed with costs.