9911796707
TMI Blog1924 (10) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts is that the property belonged to the family of Ponpayya and Mallayya, that they took a sale-deed of it from the Racherla family in the name of Mallayya's father-in-law, Harupyya of Idukal, that it was a mere benami transaction, that Pompayya and Mallayya were always inpossession, that thelandsnowbelong to defendants Nos. 4 and 5 the children of Pompayya and Mallayya, and that the lands are now being held by the 2nd defendant on a lease given to him by the first defendant as the guardian of the 4th defendant. The 3rd defendant supported the plea of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and also stated that the present suit is not maintainable on account of the order passed in O.S. No. 531 of 1918 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly the idea was to sell the plaint lands to Pompayya and Mallayya for ₹ 650, that along with this sum the whole amount due to the Racherla people came to ₹ 1,030 in 1903, of this ₹ 230 was-excused and the consideration was fixed at ₹ 800, half of which, viz.,. ₹ 400 was paid by Hampayya and for the remaining sum he gave Ex. C. Both the lower Courts have found that there is really no reason to suppose that the payments were made by Hampayya on behalf of Pompayya and Mallayya. Though originally the idea might have been to sell the property in their favour, as they were not able to find consideration. Mallayya's father-in-law must be taken to have purchased the property for himself. This is the view taken by b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent suit is not maintainable on account of the order passed in O.S. No. 531 of 1918, the facts are as follows. The 3rd defendant filed O.S. No. 2 of 1918 on the file of the District Court and attached the plaint lands before judgment; plaintiffs filed a claim petition which was dismissed, they, therefore, filed O.S. No. 531 of 1918 on the 9th of October 1918 for getting the summary order set aside and they filed the present suit on the 8th of July 1919. It will be seen that both these suits were filed within a year of the date of the order on the claim petition. In the present suit there is reference in the plaint to the claim petition and a prayer for a declaration of the rights of the plaintiffs to the plaint lands against all the defend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1918 were filed within a year of the date of the order on the claim petition. The plaintiffs elected to proceed with this suit involving the same relief after dropping the other. I may say in this connection O.S. No. 2 of 1918, in connection with which the plaint lands were attached by the 3rd defendant was dismissed after the filing of this suit. I agree with the learned District Judge that the present suit is not barred by the order in O.S. No. 531 of 1918. 6. I dismiss the second appeal with costs of defendants Nos. 9 and 10. The memorandum of objections filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 raises the same question dealt with in the second appeal. It is also dismissed with costs of respondents Nos. 9 and 10. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
