KANDURU VENKATA SOMAIAH Vs. KANDURU RAMASUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ancient rule of divesting an absolute estate of Hindu widow on adoption is sought to be resurrected in this appeal.

(2.) The 1st defendant is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of the title of the plaint schedule property and also for injunction or in the alternative possession of the plaint schedule property. The relevant averments in the pleadings may be stated for the purpose of this appeal as the pleadings reveal number of Appeal No. 472 of 1976 Dt. 20-4-1984. proceedings between the parties which may not be necessary for us to notice. According to the plaintiff her husband executed a will on 7-4-1924 bequeathing absolutely the entire estate of his. Under the will she was also given the power to adopt. She adopted the 1st defendant on 28-11-1945 and the 1st defendant was a major on the date of adoption and prior to adoption as per agreement dated 24-11-1945 she kept the property shown therein as, A schedule for her exclusively, and gave B schedule property to the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant had gone into bad ways and spent the entire property given to him and wanted to grab at the property in possession of the plaintiff and creating mortgages and making alienations high handedly of the property of the plaintiff and even threatening to dispossess the plaintiff and there are criminal proceedings also in respect of certain items of plaint schedule property and hence the suit for injunction and also possession in the alternative.

(3.) The 1st defendant resisted the suit saying the will set up by the plaintiff Ex. A-1 is not true. The true will was suppressed, the plaintiff did not get absolute estate under the true will of her husband, he was a minor at the time of adoption and he was not a party to the alleged antiadoption ageement Ex. B-107 and it is not of binding on him and it does not constitute a valid conveyance and the reservation of, A schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff does not create any right muchless an absolute right and since the date of adoption the whole is vested him and he alone was in possession of the property inspite of the alleged adoption agreement and the plaintiff has no title or possession within twelve years and the suit is barred by time and the same is liable to be dismissed.