MAKKAPATI PURNANANDA SASTRI Vs. CHINTALAPATI PURNANANDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Vijayavada dismissing his suit for recovery of possession of the properties mentioned in A to D schedules attached to the plaint and for mesne profits. The plaintiffs case is that all the suit properties belonged to Makkapati Suryaprakasam, who died in 1886, and that upon his death, Makkapati Lakshmidevamma succeeded to those properties.The plaintiff was adopted by Lakshmidevamma on 30-3-1939- He attained majority on 9-8-1950 and he filed the suit for recovery of the properties on 7-8-1953. So far as A and B schedule properties are concerned, he contended that the ante-adoption agreement entered into by his natural father with the widow Lakshmidevamma on 25-3-1939 was not valid and binding and that he Was consequently entitled to recover those properties from defendants 1, 4 and 5 with mesne profits. As regards C and D schedule properties, his contention was that the gift deed executed by Lakshmidevamma on 18-9-1895 was not binding on him. He sought to recover those properties from defendants 6 to 17 who are the alienees from the donees under the gift deed.Defendants 1 to 5 contended that the ante-adoption agreement entered into between the natural father of the plaintiff and the widow Lakshmidevamma was valid and binding inasmuch as a reasonable provision for maintenance was made of the properties specified in A and B schedules for her maintenance. Defendants 6 to 17 pleaded that even prior to the execution of the gift deed dated 18-9-1895, Chivukula Venkataramanayya and Chivukula Subbarayudu were under an oral gift put in possession of the properties specified in schedules C and D by Lakshmidevammas husband and father-in-law and that the widow had formally executed the deed of gift to give effect to the oral gift of her husband and father-in-law.Their further contention was that the deed of gift dated 18-9-1895 should be viewed as evidencing a bona fide settlement of family disputes or a family arrangement. They further pleaded that the compromises arrived at in O. S. No, 251 of 1907 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Gudivada between Makkapati Chinna Venkatachalam, Makkapati Lakshmidevamma, Chivukula Venkataramanayya and Subbarayudu was a bona fide settlement of family disputes and that the plaintiff is not entitled to go behind the compromise decree. Defendants 15 to 17 raised a further contention that the properties mentioned in D schedule did not belong to Makkapati Surya-prakasam but belong to his mother Makkapati Adilakshmamma and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover those properties.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge of Vijayavada held, in an elaborate judgment covering 25 printed pages, that the ante-adoption agreement was valid and binding on the plaintiff. He further found that the predecessors of defendants 6 to 17, i-e., Chivukula Venkataramanayya and Subbarayudu were in possession of C and D schedule properties as a result of the oral gift made by Makkapati Suryaprakasam and his father Chinna Narasimha Josyulu. He also accepted the contention of defendants 6 to 17 that the document might be viewed as a settlement of bona fide disputes or as a family arrangement.He also found that the plaintiff has not satisfactorily established that the D schedule properties belonged to Makkapati Suryaprakasam. Incidentally, he held that both Suryaprakasam and his father constituted members of a joint family and that on the death of Suryaprakasam the family properties survived to his father Chinna Narasimha Josyulu. In the result, he dismissed the plaintiffs suit with costs. The plaintiff has consequently preferred the appeal to this Court.

(3.) The learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the appellant raised the following contentions: 1. that the ante-adoption arrangement entered into between Lakshmidevamma and the plaintiffs natural father on 25-3-1939 and marked as Ex. B. 2 is not valid and binding upon the plaintiff; 2. that there is no evidence that an oral gift was made by Makkapati Suryaprakasam and his father Chinna Narasimha Josyulu in favour of Chivukula, Venkataramanayya and his brother Subbarayudu; 3. that the gift deed executed by Lakshmidevamma on 18-9-1895 was not valid and binding inasmuch as it did not evidence a bona fide settlement of family disputes or a family arrangement;