MAKINENI SUBBA RAO Vs. RANGAVARDHANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, in O.S No. 118 of 1960, filed in forma pauperis. The facts necessary for a determination of the questions in controversy may shortly be stated.

(2.) One Makkapati Lakshmaiah had a wife, Pitchmma by name. They had no sons, but had three daughters, Rattamma, Seetamma and Subbamma. Subbamma was married to one Makineni Venkatappaiah, and they had a son Subbarao, the defendant in this action, and two daughters. Annapurnamma and Seetaramamma. Annapurnmma had a son, Sivramakrishnaiah. Seetaramamma married Kanneganti Basavayya, and they had a daughter, Rangavardhanamma, the plaintiff, who was married to one Mannava Satyanarayana. Items 1, 2 and 4 to 6 of the plaint schedule, and another item measuring Ac. 1-74, in all, measuring Ac. 4-50 of dry land, are situate in the village of Nutakki in Kurnool District,, and they are covered by S. Nos. 1/2, 2, and 408/1, and Patta No. 524. Lakh maiah settled those properties and some other properties with which we are not now concerned, on his wife, Pitchamma, and daughter Subbamma by means of a registered deed, Ex. A-1 dated 8-6-1919. Similarly, he conveyed some of his other properties to his other daughters. Pitchamma was in enjoyment of the properties pursuant to Ex. A1. Lakhmaiah died in 1933, and Seetamma, his 2nd daughter, died thereafter sometime prior to 1946. Pitchamma died in 1946. After Pitchamma's demise, Subbamma was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. It may be mentioned that Ac 1-74 of land covered by S. No. 35-A, which was also settled by Ex. A-1. was sold by Subbamma and her husband, Venkatappayya, in favour of one Tadikonda Bulleyya alias Lakhmaiah. under Ex. A-2 dated 15-2-1920, and on the same day, with the saleprice of Rs. 500/-Subbamma purchased under sale-deed Ex. A-3 dated 15-2-1920, Ac 2-75 of land in S. No. 2 in the same village from one Valiveli Kotayya and his minor son, and this constitutes item 3 of the plaint schedule The property thus purchased under Ex. A-3 and the other itenas conveyed by the settlement deed. Ex, A-l, were all in the possession and enjoyment of Pkchamma till her death in 1946, and thereafter in the possession and enjoyment of Subbamma who was getting them, cultivated by her husband, Venkatappayya and her son. Subbamma by a registered gift-deed, Ex. A-12 dated 9-7-1960 conveyed the suit properties to her grand daughter, Rangavardhanamma, the plaintiff, with absolute rights. Taking advantage of his relationship, the defendant refused to deliver possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff and even questioned her title to the same.

(3.) In the plaint, an alternative case was also set up. that Seetamma having-pre deceased Pitchamma, the two daughters that survived Pitchamma were Subbamma, and Ratcamma and Rattamma having died on 25-2-1958, Subbamma be came the owner of the suit properties by survivorship, Thus, even if Subbamma was not conferred a vested remainder under Ex A-1, she became entitled toabsolute rights under the Hindu Succession Act 1956 and could, therefore, make a gift of them to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for possession of the A schedule lands after ejecting the defendant and for ascertainment of profits.