Defendant is the appellant. The respondent herein filed O.S. No. 230 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court Tenali for recovery of possession of the suit property on the ground that it belonged to his maternal grandfather, Bhavanam Venkata Reddy and after the death of his last daughter, Bhusamma, he succeeded to the property as the next reversioner.

The defendant contended that the suit property was gifted to Subbamma, one of the daughters of Venkata Reddy by her mother, Konamma as per the oral directions of her father, Venkata Reddy, that there was a family arrangement under which Subbamma’s absolute rights in the suit properties were recognised and that in any event the plaintiff who brought about and attested the Dakhal deed dated 14th October, 1906 Exhibit B-7 executed by Konamma in favour of Subbamma was estopped from challenging the validity of the Dakhal deed. The defendant claimed as the donee, under Exhibit B-8 from Bakki Reddy who claimed title from Subbamma under a settlement deed executed by her on 3rd April, 1930 and marked as Exhibit B-9.

Both the Courts below concurrently found that the defendant did not establish the family arrangement as well as the oral gift set up by them. On the question of estoppel, the District Munsif held in paragraph 22 of his judgment that it was impossible to hold that the plaintiff was estopped from questioning Subbamma’s absolute title to the suit land. He also observed that

“the defendant’s learned pleader too has not gone the length of contending that the bar of estoppel can be raised against the plaintiff based on his connection with the original of Exhibit B-7 alone.”

Though no specific ground of appeal was raised by the defendant in regard to estoppel in his memorandum of appeal filed before the Subordinate Judge of Tenali the Subordinate Judge raised the question of estoppel as the 4th point for consideration and disposed it of in paragraph 8 in a single sentence that he was not able to see how plaintiff was estopped on account of his being a party attestor in the gift deed Exhibit B-7.

The defendant has filed the Second Appeal and the main point urged by his Advocate was that the plea of estoppel ought to have been found in his favour on the strength of the Full Bench decision in Ramakotayya v. Viraraghavayya 1 . For that purpose, he relied upon the following facts found in his favour by both the Courts below: —

(1) The plaintiff, the daughter’s son of Konamma was living with her at the time of the execution of the Dakhal deed, Exhibit B-7. (2) The Stamp papers for Exhibit B-7 were purchased in his name. (3) He attested the document Exhibit B-7 and was an identifying witness at the time of its registration.

The simple question that arises for consideration is whether these admitted facts are sufficient to found an estoppel and debar the plaintiff from recovering possession of the suit property when succession opened on the death of the last daughter, Busamma on 16th October, 1945. The Dakhal deed executed by Konamma in favour of her daughter, Subbamma, runs as follows: —

“Dakhal Deed (Conveyance deed) in respect of seri wet land worth Rs. 300 executed on 14th October, 1906. Dakhal deed executed in favour of Appi Reddi’s wife Subbamma by Bhavanam Venkata Reddi’s wife Konamma.

As the property, soon after the death of your father, passed into your possession towards (your) share and as there was no public document, you required me to execute a Dakhal deed (conveyance deed). Therefore you shall henceforth be paying Government Cist etc., from now onwards and enjoy the property from now onwards and enjoy the property from son to grandson with powers of sale, gift, mortgage, and exchange. Neither myself nor my successors will question neither you nor your heirs. When you demand I am prepared to relinquish the patta, in my name and transfer it to your name. If in respect of this Dakhal deed any disputes etc., arise from gnatis, samantas and others, I shall see that thi