KAMARSU VENKATA SUBBAMMA Vs. KAMARSU VEERABHADRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge at Eluru declaring that plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are the nearest reversioners to die estate of Subbayya and are entitled to recover the plaint schedule properties in four equal shares from defendants 3 and 8. The last male-holder Subbayya died on 89-12-1907 and on his death his properties were inherited by his mother Achamma, and she died on 19-8-1944.According to the plaintiffs case, on her death;, the properties devolved upon the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 3 and 8 put the plaintiffs to strict proof that plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 were the nearest reversioners to the estate of Subbayya. They further contended that under a will executed by Subbayya, his mother Achamma was absolutely entitled to the plaint schedule properties and that by reason of a settlement effected by her in favour of the husband of the 3rd defendant, the 3rd defendant was entitled to those properties.The 8th defendant is an alienee from the 3rds defendant. It was further contended that as the written statements by defendants 1 and 2 were filed more than 12 years from the date of the death of Achamma their claim for partition and recovery of possession of their respective shares, was barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 were the nearest reversioners to tile estate of Subbayya, that the will alleged to have been executed by Subbayya was not duly proved and that the plaintiffs as also defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to recover possession in four equal shares. AS against this judgment, defendants 3 and 8 have preferred the appeal to this Court.

(2.) Having regard to the documentary and oral evidence in the case, we have no doubt that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2 are the nearest reversioners to the estate of Subbayya. Exhibit A-11 dated 15-4-1855 clearly shows that Kamarsu Veeranna is the grandfathers elder brother of China Veerayya alias China Veeraju. It is a petition filed by China Veeraju to the Collector of Bandar District.It sets out that his father Venkanna, Potlacheruvu Veeraju and Kamarsu Veeranna, the brother of their paternal grandfather Gangarajit were the karnams of file village of Undrajavaram. Sri Krishna-: Eao, the learned Advocate for the appellant, con tended that as the document was not an original one, it was not admissible in evidence. The document is signed in Telugu by Chinna Veeraju on 15th April, 1855. A perusal of that document clearly shows that it is a duplicate copy of the application filed by the Collector, Bandar District.The document clearly establishes the relationship between Veeranna and China Veeranna alias China Veeraju. The next document Ex. A-4 is an extract from the register showing the village officers and their income etc, of Undrajavaram village and it shows the names of Kamarsu Veeranna, Kamarsu Chinna Veera Raju and Potla Cheruvu Veeraju as the karnams of Undrajavaram. The last document to be referred to is the inam statement marked as Ex. A-3.It sets out the genealogy of Gangaraju. Taken along with these documents, there is the oral evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 which clearly establishes the relationship pleaded by the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2. P. W. 2 is the village munsif, and according to him, Achamma told him that Mallayya and his brothers were the nearest reversioners. P.W. 3 is the daughters son of Appayya and uncle of Subbayya, He also proved the relationship. The learned Subordinate Judge rightly relied on the documentary and oral evidence referred to supra and held that the relationship is clearly proved.

(3.) The next question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether defendants 3 and 8 have established that Subbayya had executed a will in favour of Achamma conferring absolute rights in regard to the plaint scheduled property. The will was not produced by the appellants. There is no proof of the terms of the will. The learned Subordinate Judge was consequently right in holding that the appellants have not proved that Achamma was absolutely entitled to the properties. The reference to a will in the settlement deed executed in favour of the 3rd defendants husband is not a sufficient proof of the will or its terms thereof but is only a self serving statement.