ADUGULA PITCHAMMA Vs. BATTU ALIAS ADUGULA VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lands which form the subject-matter of this second appeal are carpenter service inam lands, the last male owner being one Adugula Amaralingam, who died in July 1951 leaving a widow, the 3rd defendant and a brother, the 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant is stated to have surrendered her right to the 2nd defendant, the nearest reversioner of Amaralingam and the and defendant, in his turn, is stated to have transferred the property to the 1st defendant whose legal representatives, defendants 5 to 11 are the appellants here. Plaintiffs 1 and 2, the former of whom died pending the suit, were the sons of one Lakshmaiah, an illegitimate son of Amaralingam. The 3rd plaintiff is the widow of Lakshmaiah, who died in 1946. The plaintiffs claimed possession of the lands in schedule A to the plaint and a declaration of their title in respect of the lands in schedule B. Under Exhibit B-2, dated 12th January, 1916 and Exhibit B-1, dated 15th September, 1944, Amaralingam gave his wife, the 3rd defendant, 1 acres of land to be taken by her absolutely and an half-acre, forming schedule B to the plaint to be enjoyed by her for her life. Under Exhibit A-2, dated 14th September, 1944, Amaralingam made a gift of the A and B Schedule properties to his illegitimate son, Lakshmaiah who, under Exhibit A-3, dated 15th September, 1944, conveyed back a life interest to Amaralingam in the A schedule property. On the death of Amaralingam, the plaintiffs, as heirs of Lakshmaiah, claimed possession of the A schedule property and a declaration of their right to succeed to the B schedule property on the death of the 3rd defendant. The defendants resisted the suit on every conceivable ground. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but decreed in part by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) Sri Kotaiah, the learned advocate for the appellants argued : (1) that the alienation of the carpenter service inam lands by Amaralingam under Exhibit A-2 was invalid in law and inoperative to convey title to Lakshmaiah or his heirs, the plaintiffs; (2) that the plaintiffs could not claim as the heirs of Amaralingam because he was a ' Dwija ' (twice-born) and his illegitimate son, Lakshmaiah had no right of inheritance to him ; and (3) that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was barred under section 21 of the Madras Act III of 1895.

(3.) The first point must be found in favour of the appellants. Section 5 of Madras Act III of 1895 prohibits the alienation of carpenter service inam lands and the gift deed, Exhibit A-2, which runs in the teeth of the statutory prohibition cannot convey any legal title to the donee.