SRI RAJA RAVU SRI KRISHNAYYA RAO Vs. RAJAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Rajah of Pittapur who claims to be the next reversioner to the Gollaprolu Estate for a declaration that the adoption of the 2nd defendant by the 1 defendant is invalid and not binding on the plaintiff and that it does not affect his rights either as reversioner under Hindu Law or as the Zamindar of Pittapuram entitled to a vested reversion in the Gollaprolu Estate on the death of the 1 defendant. The 1 defendant is the widow of Venkat Rao, the last male holder of the Zamindari who died issueless on the 4 of November 1871 and the 2nd defendant is the son adopted by the 1 defendant on the 15 of February, 1914.

(2.) The Gollaprolu Estate at one time formed part of the Pittapuram Zamindari and was granted by Gangadhara Rama Rao, the then Zamindar, to his brother Venkat Rao, by a grant filed in this case as Ex. O, dated the 8 of December, 1869. Venkat Rao died issueless on the 4 of November 1871 leaving two widows - the 1 defendant and one Venkayamma who died in 1889 - and the 1 defendant who is the sole surviving widow continued in possession and enjoyment of the estate. She made an adoption of her sister's son on the 18 of August 1886 alleging that her husband authorized her to adopt. The plaintiff's father who was then the Zamindar filed O. Section No. 30 of 1886, disputing the adoption on the ground that no authority was given to her by her husband and also on the ground that her husband had no power to authorize an adoption as he had renounced any power to adopt by an agreement entered into between him and the plaintiff on the 8 of December, 1869. The Subordinate Judge decreed for the Rajah and held that she had no authority from her husband. On the question as to the effect of the agreement, he held that such an agreement would not preclude an adoption. An appeal was preferred to the High Court and the judgment of the Subordinate Judge was confirmed on the 22 September, 1891 (see judgment, Ex. 4). The 1 defendant made a second adoption in 1914 and that is the adoption which is now in dispute. The following genealogical table, the correctness of which is admitted, sets out the relationship between the parties.

(3.) The genealogical table given below shows the relationship of the parties concerned in this litigation and will serve to elucidate some of the questions raised.