Decided on November 30,1971



- (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment of Venkatesam in A. S. No. 37 of 1962. The learned Judge has allowed the appeal preferred by the defendants 1 to 5 to this Court from the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O. S. No. 44 of 1959 which decreed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff, who filed the suit died, and his legal representatives were brought on record. The appellant herein is one of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. O. S. No. 44 of 1959 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kavali was filed by the deceased plaintiff for a declaration of his title to the plaint A schedule properties and for delivery of possession of the same with profits. In order to entitle him to the relief which he claimed, the plaintiff made the following averments in the plaint.
(2.) The plaintiff is the reversioner to the estate of one Atmakaru Venkatasubbayya, who died possessed of the plaint schedule properties in the year 1883. On the death of Venkatasubbayya without issue, his widow Venkatasubbamma, succeeded to the properties and died on 11-7-1953 in the plaintiffs house. Venkatasubbamma was Venkatasubbayyas sisters daughter. The plaintiff was the sisters son of the said Venkatasubbayya. The plaintiff claimed that on Venkatasubbammas death, he became entitled to the properties as the reversioner to the estate of Late Venkatasubbayya as his sisters son and that there were no other or nearer heirs than the plaintiff to Venkatasubbayyas estate when the succession opened on 11-7-1953 consequent upon the death of the widow. It was also alleged that Venkatasubbamma, the widow of Venkatasubbayya, who was also the plaintiffs sister, executed an unregistered will dated 1-7-1953 bequeathing all the properties to the plaintiff. Venkatasubbamma filed O. S. No. 246 of 1951 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Ganigiri against defendants 6 and 7 in the suit for rent and possession in respect of item 1 of the plaint A schedule. During the pendency of the suit, Venkatasubbamma died. Thereupon the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 803 of 1953 for being impleaded as the local representatives of the deceased plaintiff Venkatasubbamma putting forward his sole reversionary right and also as a legatee under the will of Venkatasubbamma dated 1-7-1953. The present defendants 1 to 5 had filed I. A. No. 902 of 1953 to be impleaded as local representatives. It was their contention that Narayanappa, the father of the last male-holder Venkatasubbayya had taken in adoption their grandfather one Ramaswamy before the birth of Venkatasubbayya and as such there were the persons entitled to come on record by virtue of their nearer relationship to the deceased. These two I. As. Were enquired into by the Court and it was held therein that the present defendants 1 to 5 were the legal representatives and they were impleaded as such. A revision was preferred by the present plaintiff against the order in those I. As. And the same was dismissed. The plaintiff, therefore, was obliged to institute the present suit for establishment of his title to the plaint A schedule properties. The plaintiff in the present case had denied the adoption of Ramaswamy by Narayannayya.
(3.) The defendants had filed written statements and contested the plaintiffs claim. While emphatically denying that the plaintiff was the sisters son of the last male holder, they set up the case of their grandfather Ramaswamy being adopted by Nrayanappa.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.