Rayi Krishnayya vs Ganga Bai

We are unable to agree with the learned Judge that the question whether the documents by which the plaintiff''s deceased husband transferred

his rights in the plaint properties to the defendant were nominal transactions not intended to have any legal operation, is res judicata by reason of

the decision in Original Suit No. 151 of 1901. In that suit it was decided that the transfers in question would not affect the plaintiff''s right to

maintenance out of her husband''s properties. The issue framed in that suit was whether the alienations were binding on the plaintiff. There was no

issue whether they were nominal transactions. No doubt they were characterised as bogus transactions in one portion of the judgment, but in

another portion they were treated as collusive transfers brought about by the alienee and by the plaintiff''s husband to defeat the plaintiff''s right to

maintenance. In the latter case, they would be binding on the plaintiff''s husband, and on the plaintiff seeking to recover the properties as her heir.

The plaintiff''s limited right of maintenance being alone in question in the previous suit, the finding that that right was not affected by the transfers

cannot entitle the plaintiff to recover the properties as her husband''s heir. Our conclusion that there was no issue as to the nominal character of the

transfers in the previous suit also makes it necessary that we should hold that the judgment in that suit cannot be treated as evidence on that

question. A mere assertion by the plaintiff that the transfers were nominal cannot be treated as legally sufficient to uphold the plaintiff''s right. There

being no other evidence in support of her claim, we must reverse the decrees of the Courts below and the judgment of Sankaran Nair, J. and

dismiss the suit, with costs throughout.