DISTRICT COLLECTOR VIZIANAGARAM Vs. APPIKONDA RAJENDRAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.133/1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Salur. Respondents 1 to 3, who are the children of the fourth respondent, filed the suit for declaration that they belong to 'Konda Kapu' community, which is notified as a Schedule Tribe in Andhra Pradesh, and for a consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the second defendant (Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramabhadrapuram) to issue a certificate to the plaintiffs to that effect. They impleaded their father as the third defendant in the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants 1 and 2 filed an appeal A.S.No.7/1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bobbili, which was dismissed. Therefore, the defendants 1 and 2 filed this Second Appeal.

(2.) The plaintiffs' case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiffs' father (third defendant), who belonged to Kottakki village, which is near Salur and which is now part of Vizianagaram District in Andhra Pradesh, belongs to kapu community, but he was adopted by one Appikonda Lakshmunaidu, resident of Hat-Seshikhal village of Rayaghad taluk in Koraput district of Orissa State, in the year 1949. The said Appikonda Lakshmunaidu belongs to Kondakapu community. Therefore, by virtue of adoption by Appikonda Lakshmunaidu, the third defendant i.e., the father of the plaintiffs, became a kondakapu by caste. Consequently, the plaintiffs, who are the children of the third defendant also belong to Kondakapu caste, which is a Scheduled Tribe in Andhra Pradesh, and so they are entitled to the benefits as members of Scheduled Tribe.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 while denying the allegations of the plaintiffs contended that by mere adoption, the third defendant cannot claim that he belongs to Kondakapu community and so, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the benefits as members of Scheduled Tribe. They further contended that since Lakshmunaidu, was a resident of Rayaghad taluk in Orissa State where Kondakapu community is not declared as Scheduled Tribe the third defendant cannot claim the benefits of Scheduled Tribe and in fact, he did not claim that benefit; and that the plaintiffs and the third defendant, who had their education in Andhra Pradesh, are not entitled to the said benefits. It is also contended that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure.