Judgment.-The first defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff, claiming to be the nearest reversioner to the estate of one Narasimhacharyulu deceased, sued for possession of 2½ acres of inam lands with mesne profits from the first defendant, an alienee of the said lands from the daughter of Narasimhacharyulu. The last male owner died in 1870 leaving a widow who died in 1920, and a daughter who died in 1942. The daughter executed a deed of settlement of the suit lands in favour of the first defendant on 4th March, 1937, valuing the lands at Rs.1,000, The deed of settlement proceeded on the footing that Narasimhacharyulu had bequeathed the lands absolutely to his daughter under his will and that she, in her turn, was making a settlement of the lands in favour of the first defendant. Even during the lifetime of the daughter, the plaintiff claiming to be the presumptive reversioner, filed O.S.No.84 of 1940 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Bezwada for a declaration that the settlement deed executed by the daughter in favour of the first defendant was not binding on him and the other reversioners of Narasimhacharyulu beyond the lifetime of the daughter. The suit was valued for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction in the sum of Rs.1,000 which was the value of the properties as stated in the deed of settlement. Both the daughter and her alienee, the present first defendant, were impleaded as defendants to that suit and they set up the will of Narasimhacharyulu, dated 7th April, 1869, in and by which the suit lands were bequeathed absolutely to the daughter. They also denied that the plaintiff was a reversioner of Narasimhacharyulu. The suit was tried and decreed in favour of the plaintiff. An appeal preferred against the decree by the first defendant was dismissed for default. The plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali for recovery of possession of the lands after the death of the daughter relying upon the previous decision in O.S.No.84 of 1940 as conclusive of his title to the properties. In the plaint the lands were valued at Rs.4,537-8-0 on the basis of 15 times their net annual rental. A sum of Rs.952-1-0 was claimed as mesne profits. The total value of the suit being Rs.5,489-9-0, it was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali. The first defendant denied the title of the plaintiff as a reversioner of Narasimhacharyulu and asserted that the will of Narasimhacharyulu and the settlement executed by his daughter were true and valid. He also pleaded that the decision in O.S.No.84 of 1940 was vitiated by a fraud practised on the Court and by false testimony adduced by the plaintiff as regards his relationship to Narasimhacharyulu. Even otherwise, it was stated that the decision could not operate as res judicata.

The following were among the issues framed by the Court below:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is not the nearest reversioner to the late Narasimhacharyulu?

(2) Whether the decree of the District Munsif’s Court in O.S.No.84 of 1940 is binding on the first defendant and operates as res judicata in this suit?

(3) Whether the said decree is void for the reasons stated in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the first defendant’s written statement?

(4) Whether the will, dated 7th April, 1869 and the gift deed, dated 4th March, 1937, relied upon by the first defendant are true 2nd valid?

Beyond exhibiting the plaint, the judgment and a pedigree filed in O.S.No.84 of 1940 the Court below did not take any other evidence. Relying on certain decisions of the Judicial Committee and this Court which will be noticed presently it held that the defence was barred by res judicata and by section 43 of the Specific Relief Act, and decreed the suit. Mr. Dikshitulu for the first defendant here appellant, maintains that neither section 11, Civil Procedure Code, nor any general principles of res judicata, nor section 43 of the Specific Relief Act barred the defence and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document