CHENNAKESAV REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal involves the scope and interpretation of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case relevant for the purpose may be shortly stated. On 10th Apr. , 1969, Chaturvedula Rajyalakshmamma alias Rajyalakshmi, the third defendant in the suit, entered into an agreement of sale Exhibit A-1 with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the plaint B-Schedule land and another 50 yards of site adjoining thereto representing to the plaintiff that she alone had full title to the entire B-Schedule property. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of the third defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants 1 and 2 have title to the B-Schedule property, that the third defendant has only 1/3rd share and that she had misrepresented the facts. Therefore, the plaintiff raised a dispute with the third defendant and issued a registered notice to defendants 1 and 2. The third defendant ultimately executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Exhibit A-3 on 6/07/1969 for the A-Schedule property representing the 1/3rd share of the third defendant in the B-Schedule property. The plaintiff was then put in possession of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document