1942 (4) TMI 20 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Recovery of possession of immovable properties.
2. Validity of alienations made by the mother and widow.
3. Legal necessity for alienations.
4. Limitation Act applicability.
5. Nature of the 1859 and 1867 arrangements.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Recovery of Possession of Immovable Properties:
The plaintiff sought recovery of possession of immovable properties as the nearest reversioner to the estate of Ramachandrudu, claiming wrongful alienation by his mother and widow. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim to certain properties acquired with the income of the estate. The Board did not consider these properties, nor items compromised during the trial.

2. Validity of Alienations Made by the Mother and Widow:
The defendants, descendants of Subbaramayya and Velugondarayudu, claimed under alienations made by Ramachandrudu's mother and widow. The High Court found that the arrangement of 1859 did not amount to a "surrender" of the estate by the widow in favor of the mother. The 1867 arrangement was not a valid family settlement binding on the reversioner. The High Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, rejecting the defendants' claim to a 2/3 share under the 1867 arrangement.

3. Legal Necessity for Alienations:
The High Court dismissed the appeal by the contesting defendants regarding the 1/3 share alienated by Achamma, holding that legal necessity to justify the alienations was not established. The plaintiff was given a decree for possession of all suit properties except the accretions and those compromised.

4. Limitation Act Applicability:
The defendants contended that the right of action was barred under the Limitation Act of 1859, as the possession taken by Bengaramma was hostile to Achamma. The High Court held that Achamma had no cause of action against Bengaramma for dispossession, and the plaintiff's cause of action arose only on Achamma's death. The High Court rejected the plea that the remedy to recover properties became barred under Act 14 of 1859.

5. Nature of the 1859 and 1867 Arrangements:
The 1859 arrangement was an "undoubted arrangement" but not a surrender of the estate. The 1867 arrangement was not a valid family settlement. The High Court found that Subbaramayya had no competing title, and the arrangement could not bind the reversioner. The plea that the 1859 arrangement amounted to a family settlement was abandoned in the High Court. The High Court rejected the contention that the arrangement was a surrender accelerating succession.

Conclusion:
The High Court's decree was upheld, dismissing the appeals filed by the contesting defendants. The plaintiff was entitled to possession of the suit properties, and the alienations by Achamma were not justified by legal necessity. The appeals were dismissed with costs.