Case: E. Mahboob Saheb Vs. N. Subbarayan Chowdhary and Others

The plaint B Schedule property consisting of 1 acre and 90 cents of land together with two houses situated therein belonged to one Allabaksh. He was adjudged an insolvent and the official Receiver sold a half right in the said property to one Moola Narayanaswamy under Exh. A-3 da ted December 6, 1939. The remaining half interest in the property belonging to Allabakash was also subsequently brought to sale by the official Receiver and one J. Narasimhulu became the purchaser. Exh. A-27 dated January 5, 1945 is the s ale certificate issued in his favour. The resultant position was that the B Schedule property came to be owned in undivided half shares by Moola Narayanaswamy and J. Narasimhulu. Subsequently, Narasimhulu transferred his interest in the prope rty in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 4, 000 under Exh. A-l dated May 10, 1948. The plaintiff is the daughter of Moola NarayanaswamyOne Nagappa (first defendant) obtained a simple money decree against Moola Narayanaswamy in O.S . 26152 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Anantapur, and in execution thereof, he attached and brought to sale in court auction the two houses described in the plaint B Schedule property. In the said court auction, the first defendant purchased the plaint B Schedule property for Rs. 2, 050 and in enforcement of the sale certificate, he obtained delivery of possession of the two houses. Since the judgment-debtor, Narayanaswamy, was entitled to only a half interest in the pr operty, the plaintiff filed E.A. No. 90/58 in the Executing Court under order 21, Rule 100 C.P.C, asserting her independent rights to the southern half of the property and praying for redelivery of the said portion in her favour. That petition was dismissed by the Sub-Court, Anantapur, by order dated March 11, 1960, and hence. the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for setting aside the said summary order and for recovery of possession of the southern portion of the property which is described in the plaint C Schedule.During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant sold the northern half of the property in favour of the 7th defendant as per Exh. B-14 dated March 21, 1961. Later, the first defendant transferred the southern half of the property to the 8th defendant under the sale deed (Exh. B- 15) dated June 19, 1961Reference has been made to the fact that the two sales effected by the official Receiv er in favour of Narayanaswamy and Narasimhulu were in respect of unspecified half shares in the plaint B Schedule property. The basis on which the plaintiff rested her claim for recovery of possession of the southern half of the property was that a p artition had been effected between herself and the heirs of Narayanaswamy in 1952 and the C Schedule property had been allotted to her share at the said partition. Defendants 2 to 6, who are the legal heirs of deceased Narayanaswamy, did not contest the o suit. However, the first defendant, who was the main contesting defendant in the trial court, denied that any such partition had taken place. Hf. put forward the case that in effecting the purchase of the balance undivided half intere st in the property, when it was brought to sale by the official Receiver on November 28, 1944, Narasimhulu was acting as a benamidar for Moola Narayanaswamy and that the ownership in respect of the said half interest also became vested in Narayan aswamy himself. It was further contended that the transfer by Narasimhulu in favour of the plaintiff was also a benami transaction for the benefit of Narayanaswamy and hence, the entire property I ad been validly purchased by him at th e court sale held in execution of the money decree obtained by him against 1 Narayanaswamy in O.S. 26 of 1952 of the Subordinate Court, Anantapur.The two main issues that arose for determination by the trial court (court of the Munsif Magistrate, T adpatri) were (a) whether the transactions of purchase of the half share in the plaint B Schedule property by Narasimhulu at the court auction sale and the subsequent transfer of the same by Narasimhulu to the plaintiff were benami for the benefi t of Narayanaswamy and (b) whether there was a subsequent partition of the property at which the plaintiff was allotted the southern half (plaint C Schedule property). On on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the trial court found that there was no, foundation whatever for the plea of benami put forward by the first defendant, that the plaintiff was the owner of a half share in the plaint B Schedule property and that her interest could in no way be ef fected by the court sale held in execution of the money decree obtained by the first defendant against Narayanaswamy. The learned Munsif further held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in establishing her case that there had bee n a partition of the property by metes and bounds, at which the southern half of the property, namely, the plaint C Schedule plot had been allotted to her share. In view of the aforesaid findings, the trial court set aside the summary order passed in E.A. 90/58 in E.P. 7/56 in O.S. 26/52 of the Subordinate Court, Anantapur, and passed a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint B Schedule property by metes and bounds into two equal shares and for allotment and delivery of one such sha re to the plaintiffThe first defendant carried the matter in appeal before the District Court, Anantapur (A.S. 173/56) reiterating his contention that the purchase of the half interest in the plaint B Schedule property by Narasimhulu and the subsequent sale by him to the plaintiff were benami transactions. The plaintiff filed a memorandum of cross. Objections questioning the correctness of the finding entered against by the Munsif that the plea of partition put for ward by her had not been proved and praying that in place of decree for partition granted to her by the Munsif, she may be allowed to recover possession of the plaint C Schedule property after upholding her prayer regarding the partition.After a detailed consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, the learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal, upheld the finding of the trial court that the first defendant had totally failed t o establish the case put forward by him that the auction purchase effected by Narasimhulu and the subsequent transfer of the property by Narasimhulu to the plaintiff were both benami transactions intended for the benefit of Moola Narayanasw amy. It was further held by the learned Additional District Judge that subsequent to the purchase of the half interest in the B Schedule property by the plaintiff, there had been a partition between her and the other heirs of Narayanaswamy in 195 2, as pleaded by the plaintiff, and the plaint C Schedule property had been allotted to the plaintiffs share at that partition. In the light of the aforesaid findings, the appeal filed by the first defendant was dismissed by the learned Ad ditional District Judge, the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff were allowed and in modi- fication of the decree of the trial court, the plaintiff was granted a decree for recovery of possession of the plaint C Schedule propertyt the aforesaid judgment of the Additional District Judge, Anantapur, the first defendant and the 8th defendant filed two separate Second Appeals before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The two questions raised in those appeals were (a) whethe r the purchase of the property by the plaintiff was benami for Narayanaswamy and (b) whether a partition of the plaint B Schedule property had taken place as between the plaintiff and the heirs of Narayanaswamy, at which the plaintiff got the souther n half thereofA learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the two Second Appeals by a common judgment, wherein he has discussed at great length the oral and documentary evidence and entered findings of his own on the two questi ons aforementioned. The learned Judge found that there was no force in the contention put forward by the first defendant that the half interest in plaint B Schedule property was purchased at the court auction sale by Narasimhulu benami for Nara yanaswamy. He also rejected the further plea put forward by the first defendant that the subsequent transfer of the property by Narasimhulu to the plaintiff was also a benami transaction. In consequence, the Second Appeal filed by the first defenda nt was dismissed,On the second question aforesaid, the learned Judge differed from the finding of the Additional District Judge and held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that a partition of the property had been effected as be tween herself and the legal heirs of Narayanaswamy at which the C Schedule property had been allotted to her share. The learned Judge then proceeded to hold that the fact that the first defendant sold to the 7th defendant a specified portio n in the north did not necessarily create any right in the 7th defendant to the particular properly and hence this was a case where a partition of the property should be effected between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendants 7th an d 8th on the C other. In view of the said findings, the Second Appeal filed by the 8th defendant was allowed by the learned Judge and the suit was remanded to the trial court for effecting a partition of the plaint B Schedule property between the plaintiff, the 7th defendant and the 8th defendant. It is against the said decision of the High Court that the 7th defendant has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court

Reasoning:
The learned counsel appearing on both sides have taken us through the relevant portions of the evidence having a bearing on the plea of partition, and we are satisfied tha t the finding entered by the Additional District Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. No question of law whatever was agitated before the High Court. In the circumstances, there was no justification at all for the High Court to interfere with the finding of fact entered by the Additional District Judge that there had been a partition between the plaintiff and the legal heirs of Narayanaswamy in 1952 at which the plaint C Schedule property had been allott ed to the share of the plaintiffIn this view, it is unnecessary for us to go into the merits of the second contention advanced on behalf of the appellant.