RAJAH KOTAGIRI VENKATA SUBBAMMA RAO Vs. RAJAH VELLANKI VENKATEAMA RAO
Rajah Kotagiri Venkata Subbamma Rao
Rajah Vellanki Venkateama Rao
Click here to view full judgement.
DAVEY, J. -
(1.) THE delivery of the judgment on this appeal has been delayed at the request of the respondent's solicitors. In the first instance the
respondent's counsel desired to draw their Lordships' attention to
certain articles of the Code of Procedure which had not been mentioned at
the hearing of the appeal, and subsequently a petition was lodged for
leave to produce fresh evidence, which was disposed of yesterday morning.
(2.) THE facts which have given rise to the present appeal are shortly as follows. A suit was brought to recover the estate of one Sudarsuna Rao,
the succession to which opened on the death of his mother in 1872. There
were four defendants. The second and fourth defendants were the widow and
(alleged) adopted son of one Suryaprakasa Rao, deceased, and between them
represented one interest. The first and fourth defendants by their
written statements admitted the plaintiff's case. The third defendant and
second defendant contested it. But the interest of the second defendant
depended on the alleged adoption of the fourth defendant by Suryaprakasa
Rao turning out to be invalid. The respondent is the representative of
the first defendant, now deceased. That defendant was the natural father
of the original plaintiff, which to a certain extent may serve to explain
the delay in executing the decree against him.
The District Judge decided in favour of the plaintiff, and by his decree dated October 17, 1884, it was ordered that the plaintiff's claim
be allowed with mesne profits, and that the costs of plaintiff and
defendants one and four be paid by defendants two and three; that the
fourth defendant be personally exonerated, but, should he succeed in
establishing his adoption and get possession of the property of the
second defendant, then such property be liable to this decree, and that,
subject to this limitation, first, second, and third defendants be
severally and jointly liable to this decree.
(3.) THE second and third defendants appealed to the High Court, with the result that on July 12, 1886, that Court confirmed the decree of the
original Court, and dismissed the appeal with costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.