These civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of O.S. No. 302 of 1939 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Peddapuram the properties comprised in which were originally owned by one Savarala Ramanna who is referred to hereinafter as Ramanna senior. Ramanna senior died in 1892 leaving a widow, Gangamma who died in 1913 and a daughter Venkayamma who died in 1914. The first defendant is the son of Venkayamma. Ramanna senior is alleged to have adopted his sister’s son’s son, one Kola Ramanna hereinafter referred to as Ramanna junior. Ramanna junior died in 1917 leaving a widow, Ammanna, who died on 26th May, 1938, and a daughter Gangamma, who died on 18th July, 1938. The plaintiff is the son of Gangamma. The second defendant is the brother of Ramanna junior in his aurasa family. The third defendant is the plaintiff’s father’s father. The fourth defendant is not related to the plaintiff or defendants 1 to 3. He claims some of the properties in suit partly under a conveyance executed by Ammanna and partly as the purchaser in Court auction in execution of decrees obtained by him against her. Defendants 5 to 16 are alienees from defendants 1 to 4. The 17th defendant is the lessee of a house and house site while the interest of the 18th defendant does not clearly appear.

The plaintiff seeks to recover the suit properties on the short ground that they formed part of the estate of his maternal grandfather, Ramanna junior, which devolved on the death of the latter’s widow and daughter on the daughter’s son, the plaintiff, that the transactions which resulted directly or indirectly in the defendants coming into possession of the several properties were entered into by his maternal grandmother Ammanna and are not binding on him and that he is therefore entitled to obtain possession of the suit properties with mesne profits from the date of his mother’s death. The principal defence is that the plaintiff cannot claim the suit properties because of a certain award given by arbitrators in terms whereof a decree was passed in O.S.N0.8 of 1920 on the file of the Additional District Munsiff of Cocanada to which the plaintiff’s grandmother Ammanna and defendants 1 to 3 were parties. This defence found favour with the learned District Munsiff who held that the said decree was not vitiated by fraud or undue influence as alleged by the plaintiff, that it was in bona fide settlement of disputes between the plaintiff’s grandmother, Ammanna and defendants 1 to 3, who were-putting forward rival claims to the properties, that the plaintiff cannot consequently lay claim to any of the properties which were given to defendants 1 to 3 under the said decree, that even as regards the properties which Ammanna took under the said decree she had an absolute estate therein and not the limited estate of a Hindu widow as contended by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff cannot consequently question the validity of the sales of her properties in Court auction or by private treaty. In consequence of the above findings, the suit was dismissed by the learned District Munsiff.

The learned Subordinate Judge, however, held on appeal that the award-decree is vitiated by fraud and undue influence, that it does not represent a settlement of bona fide claims and that it is not valid and binding on the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge further found that Ramanna junior was the validly adopted son of Ramanna senior, that Ramanna junior died possessed of the suit properties and that the plaintiff as his daughter’s son would be entitled to recover them if the defendants did not establish that the alienations relied on by them were binding on the plaintiff. As no finding was recorded by the trial Court on the question of the binding character or otherwise of the various alienations relied upon by the defendants, the learned Subordinate Judge remanded the suit to the trial Court for fresh disposal in the light of his judgment. C.M.A. No. 355 of 19