Pursuant thereto, on an application filed by the plaintiff Respondent No.1, G. Ramireddy, the Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner and on the basis of his report, the Trial Court determined the mesne profits, to which the Respondent No.1 was entitled, to be Rs.2,31,052/ for the period from 15.08.1991 to 15.06.1999.
The Trial Court by its judgment dated 30th July, 1997, decreed the suit and held that the properties were gifted to G. Ramireddy and number to Sheshamma, who had only been given a life estate therein without any link with her maintenance during or after Pullareddys lifetime.
Both the appeals, i.e., A.S.No.
An appeal, being S.No.2869 of 2004, was filed by the Petitioners herein against the aforesaid order dated 23rd October, 2003.
The said properties were partitioned in 1947 into three equal shares and were separately enjoyed by the three companysharers thereafter according to such partition.
Although, it was admitted that the rights in respect of the properties companyered under Item No.6 of the plaint schedule had become final in O.S. No.17 of 1975, it was at the same time submitted that the same companyld number operate as res judicata in the present suit.
He also prayed for permanent injunction against the said Defendants from interfering with his possession in the said properties.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 and the heirs of Defendant No.3, Gaddam Madhavareddy, who had died in the meantime, preferred an appeal, being A.S. No.1010 of 1997, before the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the ground that the properties had been given to Sheshamma for life in lieu of her maintenance and that the same ripened into an absolute estate under Section 14 1 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
At about the same time, Sheshamma is said to have executed a Deed of Relinquishment in respect of 1.89 acres in S. Nos.93/2 and 1/1 and also executed two sale deeds in favour of one Mukkala Chennareddi and Vintha Ramakotireddy in respect of some of the aforesaid properties.
The 5th Defendant companytested the suit claiming that he was in possession of 0.07 acres of land forming part of Item No.6 of the plaint schedule properties and that he had purchased the same through sale deed dated 16th July, 1974, executed by Sheshamma for use as a passage to reach his own land and that he had remained in companytinuous possession even after the judgment in O.S. No.17 of 1975.
On 17th February, 1972, Sheshamma also executed and registered a Will in favour of her grandchildren through G. Pitchireddy, bequeathing the properties which were received by her through the Gift Deed dated 21st December, 1952, to them.
Since the matter was pending before the High Court, numberinterest was granted on the said amount.
On 15th August, 1991, Sheshamma died and on 9th October, 1991, G. Ramireddy filed O.S. No.111 of 1991, which is the present suit, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nuzvid, for a direction upon the Defendants to put him in possession of the suit properties and also for payment of mesne profits.
It was stipulated that after Sheshammas death, the properties would devolve on G. Ramireddy.
G. Pullareddy died in or about 1957.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. The suit properties, along with certain other properties, formed the joint family properties of one G. Pullareddy and his two sons, G. Pitchireddy and Gaddam Ramireddy.
On 21st December, 1952, G. Pullareddy executed and registered a Deed of Gift giving a limited right in his share of the properties to his wife, Gaddam Sheshamma.
1010/97 and A.S.No.2869/04, were heard together and were disposed of by a companymon judgment dated 28th April, 2008.
During the pendency of the appeal, the High Court, by its order dated 23rd October, 2003, stayed the execution of the decree and permitted determination of mesne profits from 15.08.1991.
The suit was companytested by Sheshamma and Mukkala Chennareddi and was ultimately decreed on 31st January, 1979, in favour of G. Ramireddy, the Respondent No.1 herein, holding that the sale deeds executed by Sheshamma in favour of the Defendant Nos.5 and 6 were invalid, inasmuch as, Sheshamma had numberright of alienation as she did number get an absolute right in the properties.
Apparently, in view of all the aforesaid alienations by Sheshamma, G. Ramireddy filed O.S. No.17 of 1975 against Sheshamma, Mukkala Chennareddi and Vintha Ramakotireddy before the District Munsif, Tituvur, for a declaration that the sale deeds dated 31st January, 1967 and 16th July, 1974, executed by his mother, Sheshamma, in favour of Mukkala Chennareddi and Vintha Ramakotireddy, who were made Defendant Nos.5 and 6 in the suit, did number affect his rights in the properties.
The Appeal against the sixth Defendant, who was made the third respondent in the appeal, was dismissed for default on 18th October, 2001, and on the death of the third Defendant, who was the third Appellant, during the pendency of the appeal, his legal representatives were brought on record.
In terms of the Gift Deed Sheshamma was given a limited right of enjoyment of the properties during her lifetime, without right of alienation, and the remainder was vested in G. Ramireddy.
No appeal appears to have been preferred against the said judgment.
