K RAGHAVENDRA RAO Vs. K RAJESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants in this appeal. The rights of a dasi putra and his children to claim partition of the non-atiyat or separate properties of the putative father and whether such a claim is barred by limitation are the main points that have been argued in this appeal, which has got not only a long history behind it but also is a second suit for house reliefs. It is necessary to state the history in brief of the litigation to understand the main points in controversy.

(2.) Domkonda is a small principality in Kamareddy taluk, held by a ruling family of Pakanati Kapu under a Sanad-E-Mash from the Nizam of Hyderabad. Umapathirao No.1 had two sons, Someswararao No.1 and Raghavendrarao No.1. We are concerned in this appeal with Raghavendrarao's branch. The genealogical tree, appended to the plaint shows the relationship of the parties. Someswara Rao's sons were Umapathi Rao No. 2 and Rajeswararao No.1. Umapathirao No. 2 had the honorific title 'Maha Balwant' while Rajeswararao No.1 held a similar title called 'Maha Jaswant'. Umapathirao No. 2 had three sons, Rajeswararao No. 2, Venkateswararao and Ramachandrarao. It is this Venkateswararao, who has gone in adoption to the branch of Raghavendrarao No.1. Raghavendra Rao No.1 had one daughter called Lachawa who was given in marriage to one Tatikonda Raja Reddy. They had a son Ramachandra Reddy and a daughter called Buchavva. Raghavendra Rao's son was Raja Sadasiva Rao, who is now the propositus in the present suit. He had also the honorific title 'Maha Ranadhirwant. His wife was Rani Venkawa. They had no children. They adopted Venkateswara Rao, the son of Umapathirao No. 2. Venkateswararao married Buchavva, his paternal aunt's daughter as his first wife. She died issueless. Thereafter he married the sister of the 4th defendant as his second wife, who also died issueless. The 4th defendant was thereafter taken as third wife and through her he had three sons, who have been impleaded as defendants i to 3 in this suit. The ruling family of Samsthan was joint and undivided for a long time. According to the custom the eldest among the various branches was being selected as the proprietor and the Munthakhab confirming the mash was awarded by the Government of late H. E. H. the Nizam. Raja Raghavendra Rao No.1 was recognised as such proprietor. After his death the Nizam granted the Sanad in 1311 Hizri jointly in the name of 'Mahabalwant', 'Maha Jaswant' and ' Maha Ranadhirwant' without specifying their respective shares in the mash.

(3.) It has been the practice of this Samstan to have slaves of both sexes. Young girls were brought up with a view to employ them, after they were grown up, as maid servants. They were called Bandies or Adapapalu. Their children were also employed again in the Palace as servants. Raja Raghavendra Rao No.1 had four Adapapalu by name Jamuna, Ramakisti, Jnanabai and Rangu. Balakishan and Rajaram are the sons of some of those maid servants. Similarly Raja Sadasiva Rao had four Adapapalu in his service Radhamma, Mathuramma, Alivelamma and Venki. Madhuramma's daughter was Lalitamma and Venki's son was Ramacharan. Radhamma gave birth to two sons Lakshmana Das and Raghava Rao. The case of the plaintiffs is that Radhamma was a dasi, who was was in the continuous and exclusive keeping as a concubine, of Raja Sadasiva Rao and therefore her sons were Dasiputras, entitled to inherit the property of Raja Sadasiva Rao. One of the main questions arising in this proceeding is whether Radhamma was a dasi or merely a servant.