TALLAPRAGADA CHINA VENKATANARASIMHARAO Vs. YEDIDA PANCHAMUKHI ANJANEYA KUMARA VENKATA VARAHA NARASIMHASWAMI BEING MINOR BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN BAPANAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. It arises out of a suit, O.S. No. 115 of 1940, filed by the plaintiffs -respondents for a declaration that the properties in the suit are the properties of the second defendant -respondent 3 and that the third defendant's right which is a half share in the properties is available to his creditors, on whose behalf the two plaintiffs -respondents filed the suit. The appellant China Venkatanarasimharao and the second defendant Kasturi Narasaraju are brothers and sons of one Chalapathi Rao. Narasaraju was given in adoption to his sister Satyavatamma in May 1930. The properties in suit were purchased in the names of the two brothers while they were' minors by their mother acting as their guardian in the year 1926. After the second defendant was given away in adoption into a family which is admitted to be a very wealthy one, the first defendant treated the property in question as solely his. But there was trouble about the validity of the adoption and the adoption was finally declared to be invalid by this Court in A.S. No. 126 of 1937. It had been declared invalid even by the lower Court and that judgment was upheld by this Court. Meanwhile he seems to have got into financial troubles and there were a number of creditors of whom the plaintiffs -respondents are some. The appellant filed O.S. No. 267 of 1933 against one G. Satyanarayanamurti, a lessee of the suit house for recovery of the house. His brother Narasaraju was also made a defendant. Later on,. the adoptive mother of Narasaraju was also made a party. In that suit the question was whether the suit property was the exclusive property of the plaintiff therein who is the first defendant here. As the suit relating to the validity of Narasaraju's adoption was pending, O.S. No. 267 of 1933, was being adjourned from time to time and after the adoption was declared invalid, O.S. No. 267 of 1933 was taken up for trial. Narasaraju, the second defendant, got two additional issues raised:

(2.) THE next point urged by Mr. P. Somasundaram, the learned advocate for the appellant, is that the lower appellate Court has arrived at wrong conclusions on the questions whether the two brothers, the appellant and Narasaraju, were really divided in status before the date of the adoption and whether the property was purchased with the ancestral funds and was therefore the joint family property of the two brothers. The lower appellate Court held that it was not proved that the property was acquired with the joint family funds and it was ako held that the two brothers had become divided in status prior to Narasaraju's adoption. Mr. P. Somasundaram has filed some documents before me and he contends that the effect of those documents would be to show that the two brothers were joint and that the property was acquired with the ancestral funds of the family. It is un -necessary to admit them, because I shall now proceed on the footing that the two brothers were joint in status and that the property was acquired from the joint family funds and was therefore the coparcenary property of the joint family. Even on this footing the decree of the lower appellate Court must be upheld.

(3.) THE second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The civil revision petition is dismissed; no costs. No leave.