N. KUMARAYYA, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE two second appeals have been referred to the Full Bench for they raise questions of allow of some importance involving inter alia the interpretation of the rivos to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act on which there is no authoritative pronouncement either of this Court or of the Supreme Court.

( 2 ) BOTH the appeals arise out of the suits for recovery of amounts on foot of two simple mortgage deeds, one executed by Golla Chinna Reddy and the other by Jayaram Reddy in the year 1950 in favour of Potlapati Nagi Reddy, Chinna Reddy died leaving him surviving his widow as the only heir. Potlapati Nagi Reddy, the mortgagee so did not live long. He died in the year 1960 survived by his widow, four sons and two married daughters. His eldest sons Govinda Reddy thereafter brought the two suits, one against the widow of Chinna Reddy, on a last day of limitation. He did not at the time of the institution. make any of the others heirs of the mortgagee ass party to any of the suits. What all he averred in the plaint in this regard was that Poltapati Nagireddy died leaving him surviving his son the plaintiff who is in possession and enjoyment of all his properties. moveable and immovable. On that basis, the prayed for a decree in his favour. The plaint he filed in either of the two cases does not indicate in any manner whatsoever that the deceased had left any other heirs or the mortgage amount was the joint family asset and the plaintiff was suing in a representative capacity. Obulamma the widow of Chinna Reddy. raised two grounds against the claim. The first ground is that the mortgage stood redeemed during the lifetime of Chinna Reddy by payment of the entire amount to Potlati Nagi Reddy himself. The mortgagor demanded there turn of the mortgage deed but Nagi Reddy made him believe that it was not available with his as it was lodged with the Income-tax Officer. It is the positive case of the widow that as a result of this redemption never thereafter was there any demand of the mortgage amount either from Chinna Reddy or after his death from the defendant, whether orally or in writing or by registered notice all alleged. The second ground raised is that he suit is bad for non-joiner of the other heirs who are necessary parties sand is therefore liable to be dismissed. The alternative contention was that even otherwise suing all alone the plaintiff cannot claim more than his share in the mortgage amount. After the written statement was filed. the heirs of Nagi Reddy applied to the Court to be brought on record as co-plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also made a similar request. As a result, they were added as co-plaintiffs on 23-11-1962. In the other suit filed against Jayarama Reddy, Similar place of discharge and non-joiner of parties were raised as an answer to the suit. After the written statement was filed, even though the prayer for imploding the co-heirs of the plaintiff was made. it was not granted by the Court on the ground that they could not be validly impleaded after the time had run against them.

( 3 ) ON merits, both the Courts concurrently found that the plea of discharge was not proved. They nevertheless dismissed both the suits on the ground of non-joiner of necessary parties.

( 4 ) THESE being second appeals the finding of fact relating to the plea of discharge is not open to review. The only point the survives for consideration is whether the non-joiner of the other heirs of Nagi Reddy within the statutory period was fatal to the suits. The legal effect of non-joiner, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, has to be considered from two different angles; what would be the position in law if the mortgage amount was the personal asset of Nagi Reddy? How does it operate if it be held that it relates to the joint family of which Govinda Reddy is the Kartha?

( 5 ) THAT Nagi Reddy and his sons lived joint does not appear to be a disputed fact. But it does not follow therefore that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document