KORA BALA THRIPURASUNDARA RAO Vs. RATALA KOTAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE pltf. is the applt. in this appeal. His suit for a declaration of title & possession of plaint B schedule properties was dismissed by the lower Ct.

(2.) THE property in suit originally belonged to one Govindu who died on 5 -10 -1897 leaving behind him his widow Veeramma & two daughters Peda Kanakamma & China Kanakamma. Veeramma died on 19 -4 -1909 & according to the pltf's case, the inheritance was divided between the two daughters in 1910. Peda Kanakamma was married to Bollayya, the father of the deft. She died in 1913. China Kanakamma who is still living surrendered the estate under a deed of surrender of 14 -8 -1946 EX. A. 1 to her son, the pltf. The pltf. sues in this suit to recover possession of half of the inheritance of his maternal grandfather which came into the possession of Peda Kanakamma by virtue of the partition of 1910 after the death of Veeramma & which continued in the possession of Bollayya, the husband of Peda Kanakamma & after his death with the deft. The pltf's case regarding the possession of Bollayya was, as stated in para. 4 of the plaint is that though after the death of Peda Kanakamma China Kanakamma became entitled to the entirety of the estate as the sole heir, her paternal aunt Lakshmamma whose son was Bollayya & the grand -children of that paternal aunt continued to live with her & that she had later on allowed those people to be in possession of plaint B schedule property at the desire of paternal aunt. The case of the deft, as put forward in the written statement was that this Bollayya was brought into the family as an illatom son -in -law by Govindu & that he was subsequently married to Peda Kanakamma under an arrangement that he should be entitled to half the properties of Govindu, that the properties were actually partitioned after the marriage of China Kanakamma & that a half share in those properties which is now represented by the B schedule attached to the plaint were given to him & that he had been in possession & enjoyment of the same till his death & thereafter the deft., his son, came to be in possession. It must be mentioned that this deft, is not the son of Bollayya by Peda Kanakamma but by his second wife Hanumayamma. The deft, in his written statement also attacked the surrender deed as being sham & that it was never intended to be acted upon. There was also a point raised in the issues that the property in dispute did not belong to Govindu & that he did not die possessed of the same but that issue was subsequently abandoned.

(3.) THE pltf. preferred this appeal against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge & as stated above, the deft, filed cross objections attacking the finding of the trial Ct. on the issue relating to illatom.