A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) CMP No. 2283/82 is to add the petitioners herein as additional respondents in As No. 221/48. CMP No. 2284/82 is to set aside the order in A. S. 221/48. CMP No. 2285/82 is to grant relief under Order 41 Rule 33 of the code of Civil Procedure in A. S. 221/48 by directing that O. S. No. 90/46 on the file of the Sub-Court, Guntur, should be dismissed. CMP No, 2286/82 is to add the respondents herein as additional respondents in AS No. 221/48. This case had the chequered carrcer of Will over four decades. These petitions arise under the fol owing circumstances. One ramachandra Charyulu died leaving a widow, Rangamma. Rangamma died in 1934. A declaratory suit, O. S. No. 90/46, was filed by the plaintiffs, who claimed to have purchased 2/3 share of their vendors who became entitled as reversicners to the estate of Ramachandra Charyulu. The first defendant in this suit filed an independent suit, O. S. No. 39/45 in which he claimed that he was the sole reversioner and so, was entitled to the entire estate of the said Ramachandra Charyulu, but later he gave up this contention and was content to claim only 1/3 share admitting that there were two other sister s sons equally entitled to the estate along with him. He too sold his interest to some other defandants. So both the suits were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment. In fact the decree passed in O. S. No. 90/46 gave effect to the rights of the parties in both the suits.

( 2 ) THE defence in the main was that the last male owner, i. e. , ramachandra Charyulu left a will bequeathing his absolute estate in favour of Rangamma, who in turn made gifts in favour of the 50th and 5lst, defendants and disposed of the other properties covered by the Will. The trial Court held that defendants 1 to 4 being sister s sons of the late ramachandra Charyulu, are the next reversioners and that the original will had not been established and so decreed in favour of plaintiffs and the persons claiming through them. As against this the 51st defendant, who is the grandson of Rangamma s brother one Krishnamacharyulu, preferred the appeal, A. S. No. 221/48 on the file of the Madras High Court. In essence, two points were raised before the Appellate Court viz. , whether the defendants 1 to 4 are the reversioners and whether the Will was actually left by Ramachandracharyulu. With regard to the first point, the appellate Court held that the relationship of defendants 1 to 4 is not established and therefore neither the first defendant nor the purchasers from defendants 2 to 4 can have any title to the suit properties. Adverting to the second question, the appellate Court held :"the trial Court also relied on the fact that in a prior litigation between other parties the will was found not to have been established as evidence under Sec. 13 of the Evidence Act and it was taken by him as a circumstance to negative the truth of the Will. In my opinion, he has made a wrong use of the opinion of the learned judge in that case as legal evidence in this case. The fact of an assertion and denial may be evidence but any conclusion of the learned judge is merely opinion evidence which cannot be accepted as relevant and admissible. That decision admittedly is not resjudicata and the use made of it by the trial Court as a step in reasoning and as corroborative of the conclusion that the will is not true is not permissible. Differing again from the trial Court on this point also, I am of opinion that the appellant has succeeded in establishing that the last male owner died, leaving a will, the true copy of which is evidenced by Ex. B. 17. If so, there is no question of any reversion or reversioners succeeding to the estate. In the result this appeal is allowed. "further held :"the question now is whether this appeal should be allowed only with reference to 51 st defendant, who is the sole appellant and with reference to this item specifically set out in the appeal memorandum or whether

Click Here to Read the rest of this document