DUVVARA LATCHANDHORA DIED Vs. DUVVARI CHINNAVADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of O.S. No. 63 of 1950 instituted by the respondents 1 to 3 in A.S. No. 328 of 1953 who are also appellants in A.S. No. 682 of 1953, for partition of their family properties set out in plaint Schedules A, B and C into three shares and to allotment to them of one such share, and for future profits, in that suit original 33 defendants had been imp leaded and on the death of defendant No. 32, his legal representatives were, during the pendency of the action, imp leaded as defendants 34, and 35. Defendants 1 to 12 are members of the other two branches of Duvvari family entitled along with the plaintiffs to their respective shares in the family estate. The other defendants are yearly tenants cultivating some of the family lands on terminable leases. One Panthala Venkanna and two others filed O.S. No. 143/50 for the partition of the properties belonging to the Duvvari family and for the allotment of 1/4 share thereof to the plaintiffs upon the footing that the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in that suit was brought into the Duvvari family as an illatom son-in-law. Both the suits were tried together and a common judgment was rendered by the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge. In O.S. No. 143/1950, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the custom of illatom adoption in the Ayyaraka community to which the families belong, and that they had also failed to prove that Chinnodu was taken into the Duvvari family as an illatom son-in-law. He, however, found that the properties described in Schedule A attached to the plaint in that suit were in the possession of the plaintiffs therein, and that they had prescribed title thereto by adverse possession. Upon those findings, he dismissed the suit for partition with costs. There is no appeal against that decision.

(2.) The following genealogical table will show the relationship of the parties:

(3.) It is seen from the above table that the common ancestor was Duwari Bheemandhora. By three different wives he had three sons, Venkannadhora, Chinna Venkannadhora, and Apparayudu. China Venkannadhora, the second of the brothers had two sons, China Bheemanna, and Satyanarayana. They are both dead. China Bheemanna has two sons, Chinnavadu and China Chinnodu. They are plaintiffs 1 and 2. The 3rd plaintiff, Venkannadhora, is the son of Satyanarayana (deceased) who was the son of China Venkannadhora. The plaintiffs, therefore, represent the branch of China Venkannadhora. Defendant No. 1 in the son of Venkannadhora, the 1st son of Bheemandhora, the common ancestor. Defendants 2 to 4 are his sorts. Defendants 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the sons of the two deceased brothers of the 1st defendant. Thus defendants 1 to 9 represent the branch of Venkannadhora. Defendant 10 is the son of Apparayadu, the third son of Bheemandhora. Defendants 11 and 12 are his sons. They, therefore, represent Apparayudus branch.