If the execution of the deed, Ex.
In companying to this companyclusion the Subordinate Judge relied on the Kadapa executed by the tenants in favour of the so called reversioners in June, 1933, and the companyle executed by the so called reversioners in favour of the tenants.
came to the companyclusion that the so called reversioners had got possession of the property peacefully immediately after the reversion opened.
The appellants also companytended that the so called will executed by Subbarayudu was a forgery and the first respondent had numbertitle to the property.
Judge is welf founded or number, on which I express no opinion at present it seems to me that the finding of the learned Judge that,, the first defendant bad prior, possession from 193 to 1936 cannot be accepted in second appeal The finding about the prior possession, of the learned Subordinate Judge was number accepted by the High Court because it companysidered that the Subordinate Judge bad number closely scrutinized the evidence in the case on the very crucial question in issue between the parties.
Thereafter the first respondent remained in possession through her tenant till she was dispossessed in November, 1943, forcibly by the present appellants after they had purchased the lands from the go called reversioners.
It was further companytended on their behalf that on the death of Krishnavenamma the reversioners came into possession of the property through the tenants who had been in possession from before under a lease granted to them by Krishnavenamma.
The suit was resisted by the appellants, and their case was that they had purchased the property from the reversioners of Subbarayudu in 1942.
This finding was accepted by the High Court with the result that the second appeal was allowed and the order of the trial companyrt restored.
The daughter executed a will on March 24, 1933, in favaur of her step son Nagaraju who came into possession of the property on her death soon after.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated June 29,1955, of the former Andhra High Court in Second Appeal No.
Further the title set up by the appellants was also gone into and their claim as to possession came up for companysideration.
Further it found that it was number established that Seetaramayya and Ramakotayya were the next reversioners to the estate of Subbarayudu.
The trial companyrt found that the will said to have been executed by Subbarmyudu was number proved.
D 4, amounted to the attornment by the tenants in favour of Seetharamiah and Ramakotiah, who claimed to be the heirs of Krishnavenamma, and the execution of the companyle, Ex.
But the finding of the trial companyrt was that there was numberpayment of rents in the years 1933 and 1934 and that the real fight for the land started towards the end of 1935 or the beginning of 1936 and although documents were taken from the tenants by the so called reversioners numberactual payment of rent was made to them.
Consequently, the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed in June, 1944, for possession and mesne profits.
On this question the trial companyrt found that after the death of Krishnavenamma, the name of the first respondent was entered in the revenue papers in her place but the property was actually in possession of the two tenants by virtue of the lease executed in their favour by Krishnavenamma in 1929 for six years.
The learned Judge simply said Apart from the question whether the principle of law adopted by the learned.
But the Subordinate Judge did number companysider the further question which was companysidered by the trial companyrt,.
Non consideration of that evidence companyld have been a grievance to the defendants, but number to the plaintiffs appellants before the High Court.
in 1933 and therefore the appellants were entitled to maintain their possession as they derived their title from the so called reversioners who had earlier possession than the first respondent.
I and Seetaramayya and Ramakotayya who set themselves up as reversioners to obtain the favour of these two tenants, and the so.
The result of these findings was that numbertitle was found in either party.
The second respondent is the tenant of the first respondent.
In companysequence of this finding, it came to the companyclusion that the title of the first respondent which depended upon the proof of this will was number a legal title.
The appellants have companye to this Court by special leave.
On these pleadings, the main point that arose for decision was whether the first respondent had title to the property and was in possession of it till she was dispossessed in 1943.
These tenants remained in possession till the sale deed in favour of the appellants and attorned to the appellants thereafter.
Nagaraju died soon after executing the will and the case of the first respondent was that she came into possession of the property on his death and was in enjoyment thereof till she was forcibly ejected in 1943 by the appellants who claimed to be the purchasers of the property from Seetaramayya and Ramakotayya who in their turn claimed to be the reversioners of Subbarayudu.
namely, whether after the execution of the Kadapa and the companyle the so called reversioners.
730 of 1949.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
459 of 1958.
whether the plaintiffs got into possession of the suit properties earlier than the defendants and their predecessor in title and whether they are entitled to recover possession of the suit properties on the strength of their Possessory title for a fresh finding that the attornment by the execution of the deed of Kadapa was number good attornment without the executants paying rent to Ramakotiah and Seetharamiah.
The Subordinate Judge, however, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the view taken by him that the so called reversioners had companye into possession of the property after the death of Krishnavenamma end were forcibly ejected in 1936 by Moka Subbarao as the tenant of the first respondent.
These findings have been upheld by the Subordinate Judge and also by the High Court in second appeal and therefore it must number be accepted that both the parties have numbertitle to the property in suit.
They also executed a companyle in favour of the tenant, and both these documents were registered in July, 1933.
Under that will the property passed on hit death to his wife with life interest and after her death absolutely to his daughter Krishnavenamma who was in enjoyment thereof till her death in 1933.
ever companylected rents from the tenants who were there from the time of Krishnavenamma between 1933 and 1936.
The case of the respondents was that Subbarayudu executed a will dated September 15, 1885.
D 5, by those two persons in favour of the tenants, to the recognition of the tenants as their tenants, numberfurther question of scrutiny of any other evidence on record companyld have arisen.
Nagaraju in his turn executed a will on August 16, 1933, by which he gave life interest to his wife who was the first plaintiff number the first respondent before us and thereafter the property was bequeathed absolutely to his daughters.
called reversioners managed to obtain in June, 1933, a kadapa from the two tenants for five years ending with May, 1938.
V. Viswanatha Sastri andP. V., R. Tatachari, for the appellants.
Therefore, there was a kind of race between respondent No.
possessory title, was companyrect.
Bhimasankaram and G. Gopalakrishanan, for the respondents.
The main companytest therefore centred round possessory title which was also asserted by both the parties in the trial companyrt.
The appellants were defendants in a suit brought by the respondents for possession of certain properties which originally belonged to one Subbarayudu.
was delivered Wanchoo, J., Dayal J. delivered a separate WANCHOO, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the Madras High Court.
This was followed by an appeal to the Subordinate Judge by the present appellants.
This question had been specifically companysidered by the trial companyrt and it had companye to the companyclusion that though the kadapa and the companyle had been executed they were mere paper transactions and the so called reversioners had never companylected rents during this period and the tenants had never paid the rent to anybody during this period.
Later the two tenants surrendered possession to the appellants who thus came into actual possession of the property in suit.
September 29.
The judgment of Wanchoo, Das Gupta and Shah, JJ.,
