Decided on June 28,1900

Rajah Kotagiri Venkata Subbamma Rao Appellant
Rajah Vellanki Venkateama Rao Respondents


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.;

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