Scope of the provisions of Trusts Act, 1882 Section 91.

This is a second appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry confirming that of the Court of the District Munsiff of Ramachandrapur in O.S. No. 212 of 1946.

The plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Kondepudi Ramanna. He executed a Khandagutta cowle, Exhibit D-1, dated 9th June, 1905, in favour of Sattiraju for a period of forty-one years. On 4th December, 1915, Ramanna entered into an agreement to sell the same property in favour of the plaintiff’s grandfather, Marina Veeranna. Marina Veeranna filed O.S. No. 928 of 1916 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Ramachandrapur, for recovery of a sum of money due to him on a promissory note executed by Ramanna. In that suit, on 17th September, 1916, he attached before judgment the suit properties subject to his own right under the aforesaid agreement. After attachment, on 14th October, 1916, Ramanna executed a sale deed - conveying the plaint schedule properties to Sattiraju under Exhibit D-2. On 10th November, 1916, Sattiraju, in his turn, executed a mortgage deed, Exhibit D-4 in favour of the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,000. Veeranna filed O.S. No. 1174 of 1916 for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement to sell and obtained a decree therein. To that suit Ramanna and Sattiraju were made parties. Pursuant to the decree for specific performance Ramanna executed a sale deed, Exhibit P-1 on 6th April, 1918, conveying the property to Veranna for a sum of Rs. 2,000. The first defendant, in whose favour Sattiraju executed a mortgage-deed, dated 10th November, 1916, filed, twelve years thereafter, O.S. No. 33 of 1928 for recovery of the amount due under the mortgage and obtained a decree therein. In execution of the decree, the said properties were purchased by the other defendants in different shares and subsequently there were exchanges between them. The plaintiff who is the grandson of Marina Veeranna and is presumably named after him, filed O.S. No. 212 of 1946, on the file of the District Munsiff of Ramachandrapur for establishing his right to the plaint schedule properties, for possession, and for mesne profits. The defendants raised various pleas which are reflected in the following issues:-

1. Whether the agreement dated 4th December, 1915, in favour of the plaintiff’s grandfather is true and whether the decree in O.S. No. 1174 of 1916 in pursuance of the same is binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the sale deed dated 14th October, 1916, in favour of Rimmalapudi Sattiraju the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and the mortgage by him in favour of the first defendant and the subsequent proceedings O.S. No. 33 of 1928 and the E.P. No. 11 of 1930 are all true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?

3. Whether the defendants are entitled to any relief under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act?

4. In any view whether the claim of the defendants is vitiated by the rule of lis pendens?

5. Whether the schedule properties were attached before judgment in O.S. No. 926 of 1916, and if so what is the effect of the same?

6. What is the effect of the proceedings in O.P. No. 73 of 1928 on the rights of the plaintiff and defendants?

7. Whether defendants are estopped to question the rights of the plaintiff?

8. Whether the khandagutta cowle in favour of Rimmalapudi Sattiraju is only a usufructuary mortgage and whether the suit of the plaintiff in its present form is not maintainable?

9. To what mesne profits and at what rate is the plaintiff entitled?

10. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled? The learned District Munsiff held, on the evidence, that the sale deed executed by Ramanna in favour of Sattiraju was a collusive one and therefore Ramanna had validly conveyed title to Veeranna under Exhibit P-1. He also held that the mortgage by Sattiraju in favour of the first defendant was also collusive. He also found that the claim of the mortgagee was affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. In t