G PEDDANNA Vs. M SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the decree, and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bapatla in O. S. No. 8 of 1956 on his file. The facts relevant for the determination of the questions in controversy are as follows:The parties are all members of the barber community, in recent time called "Naye Brahmins". One Kommuru Seetiab had an elder brother, Subbarayudu, and a younger brother Venkatarayudu. Subbarayudu had two sons. Ramakrishna. admitted to be alive, and another son, Ankanna, who died long time ago leaving a son, Veeraraghavulu. The suit relates to the properties enjoyed by Kommuru Seetiah, Seetiah married one Pitchamma, and bad by her a son. Seshiah, and a daughter Bullemma alias Lakshmakka. Seshiah is said to have married, but it is admitted that he died without any issue. Lakshmakka was married to one Veeraraghvulu, and it is alleged that he was brought into the family as an illatom son-in-law and after the death of Seetiah, he (Veeraraghvulu) enjoyed the properties as such, and performsd the services, Veeraraghvulu had three daughters, (1) Venkata Lakshmi; (2) Hanumayamma, 1st plaintiff, and (3) Alivelu. Venkata Lakshmi married one Manchi Brahmayya. and they had two sons, Manchikalapudi Subbarao, and Manchikalapudi Venkatesewarlu (defendents 1 and 2) in the suit. Hanumayamma the 1st plaintiff had two issues Peddanna (2nd plaintiff), and a daughter Erepulli Nagarathamrna (5th defendant). Alivelu married one Laxminarsu, and she had two sons, Munugoti Venkateshwarlu, and Munugoti Venkataswtmy (defendants 3 ane 4). Seetiah died in 1897. When Seshaiah died is in controversy, and the question will be considered later. Pitchamma died in 1936. Lakshmakka died in January, 1954, and it is admitted that the eldest, and the 3rd daughter, Venkatalaxmi, and Alivelu predeceased her. The only surviving daughter of Lakshmakka was Hanumayamma, the 1st plaintiff, who died on 14-8-1956 after the Hindu Succession Act came into force.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that after the death of Lakshmakka her only surviving daughter, Hanumayamma, the 1st plaintiff, succeeded to the suit properties, but defendants 1 and 2 got into possession, and refused to deliver them inspire of demands by the plaintiff. Hence the suit for recovery of possession and for profits. It may be mentioned that the 1st plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit, and her son, Peddanna (2nd plaintiff), and daughter Nagarathamma (5th defendant) were brought on record as her legal representatives.

(3.) The 2nd plaintiff contended that even assuming that Seeriah was the last male holder, and his properties devolved on Pitchiimma, and later Lakshmakka, then after her demise, Hanumayamma (1st plantiff) became entitled to the suit properties as the nearest relation of Seetiah, and while remaining in possession as the limited owner, rights became enlarged, and she became the absolute owner by reason of the Hindu Succession Act, and consequently, the 2nd plaintiff became entitled to the suit properties. The suit was resisted only by defendants 1 and 2.