POLAMARASETTI ATCHANNA Vs. DODDI APPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unfortunately both the Courts below have gone off the mark in this case. Even the elementary principles of Hindu Law were obviously missed.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff instituted the present suit for declaration of his title and possession alleging that the suit properly belonged to one D. Kannayya who died in 1914. He had two wives, one Kannamma whose son from D. Kannayya is the plaintiff. Kannamma died in September, 1939. The other wife was D. Venkayamma who died on 26-10-52. She was the 1st defendant in this case. The plaintiff stated that after the death of his father when he was ten years old he was taken away by his uncle to Rangoon. The Ist defendant remained in possession on his behalf and that as she now denied his title and refuses to hand over the possession, the present suit was laid not only against the Ist defendant but the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who were her brothers living with the Ist defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 also died and their legal representatives were brought on record, who are the appellants before me.

(3.) This suit was resisted by all the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff is not the son either legitimate or illegitimate of D. Kannayya and that he has been out of possession since 1914, the year in which Kannayya died.