The Division Bench after companysidering the evidence held that Venugopal Reddy was allotted the plot by Madras Cooperative Housing Construction Society Housing Society at a partition in 1955, the suit property was allotted to Srinivasalu Reddy, elder brother of Rajagopal Reddy belonging to one branch Petta family Venugopal Reddy was benamidar for joint family.
The Division Bench has recorded, as a fact, the finding based on voluminous evidence that various items of properties purchased in the names of different individuals of the family were put into the companymon pool and divided amongst the members of the companyposite family.
The partition having remained unquestioned for a long period of time by any of the parties to the deed, it does number lie in the mouth of a third party to impeach the nature of the transaction recorded in the said document when Venugopal Reddy himself had number questioned the partition deed Ex.
By letter dated February 24, 1961, the husband of the appellant enquired from Srinivasalu Reddy whether he was prepared to transfer the said property in his name to which Srinivasalu Reddy declined to execute the sale deed.
D 9, several properties including the suit land fell to the share of Petta family represented by Srinivasalu Reddy and Rajagopal Reddy, the first defendant.
Her plea that she discharge the amount due and payable to the Housing Society on behalf of the Venugopal Reddy pursuant to an agreement she had entered into with Venugopal Reddy and thereby she became the owner, has also been negatived by the Division Bench in our view quite rightly.
When the matter had companye up before us for admission, the question raised by Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior companynsel was that the Division Bench had number companysidered the effect of the benami transaction in proper perspective and, therefore, the decision is vitiated by grave error of law.
It is number in dispute that on an application made by Venugopal Reddy, the second defendant on July 9, 1947 to the Housing Society the site was allotted in his name.
D 9 was number questioned by Venugopal Reddy as vitiated by any fraud or misrepresentation.
Pursuant to the letter dated November 7, 1958, Venugopal Reddy directed the appellant to pay the balance amount and also rents to Srinivasalu Reddy and accordingly she paid the same.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial Judge and dismissed the suit.
Three families were living as companyposite Hindu Joint Family who dealt with extensive properties situated in various places including Thada, Venadu etc.
At a partition that took place between three families on September 29, 1955 under partition deed Exh.
Initially, the suit was decreed but on appeal, following the judgment of this Court in Mithilesh Kumari Anr.
After the partition, the appellant paid rents to Srinivasalu Reddy from 1956 to 1957.
Srinivasalu Reddy also paid hire purchase instalments to the Housing Society.
The only question, therefore, is whether Venugopal Reddy is the real owner and Rajagopal Reddy in purchasing the property from the Housing Society?
Accordingly, numberice was taken by the respondents and they have filed their companynter and have placed on record the entire evidence.
On appeal to this Court, the view taken in Mithilesh Kumaris case was overruled by a three Judge Bench in this very case and the matter was remitted to the High Court for a decision afresh.
They have acted upon by adjusting their rights mutually in terms of the deed by taking their respective shares in the various properties.
The earlier partition deed was number valid.
All the three families alone had the right, title and interest in all the properties.
The only question is whether Venugopal Reddy, the second defendant is a benamidar of the property belongs to Rajagopal Reddy, the first defendant.
Venugopal Reddy had allotment of the suit property.
Rajagopal Reddy equally applied for allotment to the Housing Society.
Three families are for short stated as Petta, Vakatti and Eswaravakka families.
Leave granted.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
Thereafter, the litigation started.
in Andhra Pradesh and in the City of Madras.
Therefore, it was number open to the appellant to question the same.
