It was found that the first defendant Achal Reddi has numbertitle to the suit property and that he is number in possession of the same.
Varada Reddi died pending the suit.
The respondents are the legal representatives of Munisubba Reddi, the plain tiff therein.
21 of 1961 reversed the decree.
However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the plaintiff.
The title that vested in the plaintiff on 6.6.1949 companytinued to remain with him thereafter for the above reasons.
A. 1 sale deed in favour of Munisubba Reddi on 6.10.1949.
He companyveyed possession of the land to one Varada Reddi under an oral agreement of sale on 10.7.1946.
Padmanabhan, K.M.M. Khan and Vineet Kumar for the Appellant.
That suit was instituted on 11.2.1959 for recovery of possession of the suit property with mesne profits.
This assumption of the learned Single Judge was found to be faulty by the Division Bench.
It is necessary to set out few facts for the purpose of this appeal.
As already stated, the decree was allowed to lapse leaving the title of the plaintiff under Ex.
426 of 1965 on 31.1.1969.
Mu thukrishna Reddi was impleaded as his legal representative.
The decree became final, but was number executed.
A.4 dated 12.12.1955 and while in posses sion, the defendants Achal Reddi and others trespassed into the property in 1956.
Varada Reddi, aggrieved, instituted O.S. No.
The appellant was the first defendant in O.S. No.
76/1949 for specific performance against the plaintiff and his vendors, that would have put an end to the title of the plaintiff under Ex.
The first appellate companyrt by the judgment dated 5.8.1964 rendered after the remand companysidered the question of title as well as possession and held If Muthukrishna Reddi had enforced the decree in O.S. No.
The second appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed by the High Court in S.A. No.
That suit was decreed in his favour on 13.12.1952.
From the Judgment and decree dated 9.10.1973 of the Madras High Court in L.P.A. No.
A deed of sale was drawn up on 17.7.1947, but Dasu Reddi died before it companyld be registered.
Achal Reddi companytested the suit denying the petitioners title and the alleged trespass and claiming that Muthukrishna Reddy had orally transferred his rights and companyveyed possession to him for valuable companysideration.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1945 of 1974.
A. 1 unaf fected.
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree dated the 9th October, 1973 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt on 7.11.1960.
78 of 1949 against Munisubba Reddi and his vendors for specific performance of the companytract for sale, asserting his possession in pursuance of the agreement dated 10.7.1946.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FATHIMA BEEVI, J. 1.
Vepa Sarathy and Ramesh N. Keshwani for the Respondents.
The first appellate companyrt by the revised judgment dated the 5th August, 1961 in A.S. No.
78 of 1969.
The trial companyrt in granting the petitioner a decree for possession found that the plaintiffs title under the sale deed of 1949 as against his vendors was made perfect and title did number pass to Muthukrishna Reddi as he did number choose to execute the decree and the petitioner was in possession within 12 years prior to the suit.
78 of 1969.
53 of 1959 in the Munsiffs Court Chingleput.
Thereafter his sons Rajaram Reddi and Ramalinga Reddi executed Ex.
The suit property having an extent of 13 acres and 42 1/2 cents originally belonged to one Dasu Reddi.
In the present suit the plaintiff Munisubba Reddi alleged that he was put in possession of the land by Mu thukrishna Reddi after the said decree under an arrangement evidenced by Ex.
