DIYYALA GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. PULLAGURA DHANALAKSHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 11/10/2002 passed in Second Appeal No. 71 of 1991.

(2.) THE facts have been stated in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the appeal filed by the defendants before the first appellate court, Savitramma died and the appellant herein had filed substitution application claiming to be her adopted son. The claim of the petitioner in the substitution application to be the adopted son of Savitramma was denied by the defendants. The first appellate court by an order dated 16/31/1987 allowed the substitution application of the appellant but finally came to the conclusion that he was not entitled to manage the property or perform pooja because he was not the natural son of Savitramma. The first appellate court held that the word "issue" in the will would not include an adopted son. That view of the first appellate court has been upheld by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.