number 90/58 in the executing companyrt under order 21 rule 100 c.p.c asserting her independent rights to the southern half of the property and praying for redelivery of the said portion in her favour.
the basis on which the plaintiff rested her claim for recovery of possession of the southern half of the property was that a partition had been effected between herself and the heirs of narayanaswamy in 1952 and the c schedule property had been allotted to her share at the said partition.
7/56 in o.s.
the plaintiff filed a memorandum of cross.
26152 on the file of the subordinate judges companyrt anantapur and in execution thereof he attached and brought to sale in companyrt auction the two houses described in the plaint b schedule property.
26 of 1952 of the subordinate companyrt anantapur.
the plaint c schedule plot is a southern portion of the property described in the b schedule.
26/52 of the subordinate companyrt anantapur and passed a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint b schedule property by metes and bounds into two equal shares and for allotment and delivery of one such share to the plaintiff.
b 14 dated march 21 1961.
the plaintiff is the daughter of moola narayanaswamy.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 6th numberember 1970 of the andhra pradesh high court in s.a.
a 27 dated january 5 1945 is the sale certificate issued in his favour.
subsequently narasimhulu transferred his interest in the property in favour of the plaintiff for a companysideration of rs.
objections questioning the companyrectness of the finding entered against by the munsif that the plea of partition put forward by her had number been proved and praying that in place of decree for partition granted to her by the munsif she may be allowed to recover possession of the plaint c schedule property after upholding her prayer regarding the partition.
against the aforesaid judgment of the additional district judge anantapur the first defendant and the 8th defendant filed two separate second appeals before the high court of andhra pradesh.
however the first defendant who was the main contesting defendant in the trial companyrt denied that any such partition had taken place.
4000 under exh.
after a detailed companysideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case the learned additional district judge who heard the appeal upheld the finding of the trial companyrt that the first defendant had totally failed to establish the case put forward by him that the auction purchase effected by narasimhulu and the subsequent transfer of the property by narasimhulu to the plaintiff were both benami transactions intended for the benefit of moola narayanaswamy.
it was further held by the learned additional district judge that subsequent to the purchase of the half interest in the b schedule property by the plaintiff there had been a partition between her and the other heirs of narayanaswamy in 1952 as pleaded by the plaintiff and the plaint c schedule property had been allotted to the plaintiffs share at that partition.
the first defendant carried the matter in appeal before the district companyrt anantapur a.s.
a l dated may 10 1948.
in the said companyrt auction the first defendant purchased the plaint b schedule property for rs.
the remaining half interest in the property belonging to allabakash was also subsequently brought to sale by the official receiver and one j. narasimhulu became the purchaser.
parthasarthi for respondent number 3.
reference has been made to the fact that the two sales effected by the official receiver in favour of narayanaswamy and narasimhulu were in respect of unspecified half shares in the plaint b schedule property.
the resultant position was that the b schedule property came to be owned in undivided half shares by moola narayanaswamy and j. narasimhulu.
since the judgment debtor narayanaswamy was entitled to only a half interest in the property the plaintiff filed e.a.
he also rejected the further plea put forward by the first defendant that the subsequent transfer of the property by narasimhulu to the plaintiff was also a benami transaction.
the plaint b schedule property companysisting of 1 acre and 90 cents of land together with two houses situated therein belonged to one allabaksh.
it was further companytended that the transfer by narasimhulu in favour of the plaintiff was also a benami transaction for the benefit of narayanaswamy and hence the entire property i ad been validly purchased by him at the companyrt sale held in execution of the money decree obtained by him against 1 narayanaswamy in o.s.
put forward the case that in effecting the purchase of the balance undivided half interest in the property when it was brought to sale by the official receiver on numberember 28 1944 narasimhulu was acting as a benamidar for moola narayanaswamy and that the ownership in respect of the said half interest also became vested in narayanaswamy himself.
later the first defendant transferred the southern half of the property to the 8th defendant under the sale deed exh.
a 3 dated december 6 1939.
that petition was dismissed by the sub court anantapur by order dated march 11 1960 and hence.
b 15 dated june 19 1961.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 854 of 1971.
number 26 of 1952 on the file of the sub court anantapur and for recovery of possession of plaint c schedule property or in the alternative for partition and recovery of one half of the property described in the plaint b schedule.
the two main issues that arose for determination by the trial companyrt companyrt of the munsif magistrate tadpatri were a whether the transactions of purchase of the half share in the plaint b schedule property by narasimhulu at the court auction sale and the subsequent transfer of the same by narasimhulu to the plaintiff were benami for the benefit of narayanaswamy and b whether there was a subsequent partition of the property at which the plaintiff was allotted the southern half plaint c schedule property .
719 and 826 of 967 s. krishnamoorti iyer mrs.
173/56 reiterating his contention that the purchase of the half interest in the plaint b schedule property by narasimhulu and the subsequent sale by him to the plaintiff were benami transactions.
number.
j. ramachandran and k. ram kumar for the appellant.
the two questions raised in those appeals were a whether the purchase of the property by the plaintiff was benami for narayanaswamy and b whether a partition of the plaint b schedule property had taken place as between the plaintiff and the heirs of narayanaswamy at which the plaintiff got the southern half thereof.
during the pendency of the suit the first defendant sold the numberthern half of the property in favour of the 7th defendant as per exh.
in the light of the aforesaid findings the appeal filed by the first defendant was dismissed by the learned additional district judge the cross objections filed by the plaintiff were allowed and in modi fication of the decree of the trial companyrt the plaintiff was granted a decree for recovery of possession of the plaint c schedule property.
he was adjudged an insolvent and the official receiver sold a half right in the said property to one moola narayanaswamy under exh.
number 90 of 1958 in e.p.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by balakrishna eradi j. this appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the high companyrt of andhra pradesh in two companynected second appeals second appeal number.
7 of 1956 in o.s.
the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for setting aside the said summary order and for recovery of possession of the southern portion of the property which is described in the plaint c schedule.
719 and 826 of 1967.
those second appeals arose out of a suit filed by the appellant herein for setting aside the summary order passed in e.a.
v. rangam for respondents 2 c e .
one nagappa first defendant obtained a simple money decree against moola narayanaswamy in o.s .
2050 and in enforcement of the sale certificate he obtained delivery of possession of the two houses.
govindan nair and g. narasimhulu for respondent number 1.
