DEPURU VEERARAGHAVA REDDI Vs. DEPURU KAMALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the immovable and movable properties described in the plaint. The plaintiff's claim was based on his adoption by defendant 1, widow of the deceased Depuru Rami Reddi, who was the original owner of the properties described in the plaint. It is common ground that Rami Reddi left a will, Ex. P -1, dated 19 -7.1921 disposing of his properties in the manner therein set out. Rami Reddi was the owner of landed properties situated in the village of Mahimalur of which he was also the hereditary village headman. He had lauded properties in other villages aa well. He died on 26 -7 -1921 leaving behind him his two widows, Venkamma and Kamalamma. The first wife, Venkamma had been living apart from Rami Reddi for some years before his death and a separate pro -vision for her maintenance had also been made by Rami Reddi during his lifetime. The will Ex. P -1, makes a provision for Kamalamma, the second wife of Rami Reddi and in favour of the child to be born to her who was enceinte on the date of the execution of the will. There was also reference to succession to the estate by a son to be adopted to him in the event of failure of issue, either male or female, of Rami Reddi, A posthu -mous female child was born but died after a few days of its birth. The construction of this will, Ex. P -1, viewed as an authority to his wife to adopt, has been the subject of a difference of opinion between the two Courts which have tried the suit but for the reasons which we shall state presently, it is, not necessary to decide whether the view of the trial Court or that of the appellate Court is correct.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case is that, pursuant to the authority given to defendant 1 by Rami Reddi, she adopted him and treated him as her adopted son. He therefore claims that he has succeeded to the estate of Rami Reddi as adopted sou. Defendant l denies that she ever adopted the plaintiff. She also pleads that the will, Ex. P -1, on its true construction and in the events that have happened, did not authorise the adoption. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the adoption was true in fact but invalid in law, and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned District Judge was of the opinion that Ex. P -1 was of sufficient amplitude to permit of an adoptionbeing made by defendant 1 in the events that have happened but found against the truth of the adoption of the plaintiff by the widow of Rami Reddi. He commented upon the several infirmative circumstances in the ease and the serious discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of the adoption set up by him and came to the emphatic conclusion that the adoption was not established. Mr. Veera -raghavan for the appellant tried to challenge this finding of fact of the learned District Judge but having considered the whole of the evidence we find it impossible to say that the finding is either erroneous in law or perverse. The case must therefore proceed on the footing that there was no adoption in fact.

(3.) RELIANCE has been placed on the statements of defendant 1 in connection with the appointment of a successor to the office of village headman in succession to Rami Reddi, Defendant 2 was a relation of defendant 1 the widow of Rami Reddi and had been appointed along with another, as her adviser and the manager of her properties under the terms of the will, EX. P. 1. The present plaintiff is no other than the nephew of defendant 2 who was himself isaueless, under the advice of Vakati -narasimha Reddi, defendant 2, and with the object of securing the office of village headman to the plaintiff, then a minor, and enabling defendant 2 to act as a proxy for the minor, certain representations were made by the widow to the revenue authorities in connection with the office of village headman. Exhibit P. 2 isa petition and Ex. P. 4 and Ex. P. 22 are the statements of the widow, defendant 1, in connection with the appointment of a successor to her husband to the office of village headman of Mahimalur. In all these three documents, there is an admission by defendant 1 that she had adopted the plaintiff pursuant to her husband's authority given to her under Ex. P. 1 and this admission is coupled with a request that the plaintiff, then a minor, might be appointed to the office of village headman and defendant 2 might be appointed to act for him during his minority. The plaintiff whose right to the office was recognised on the strength of these representations during his minority became a major in 1939 and entered upon the duties of the office himself. Till then defendant 2 was acting for him.