K SHYAMALAMBA Vs. PERUN SURYALINGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 109/65 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, are the appellants. They have preferred this appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 31-8-71 passed by that Court dismissing the suit filed by them. In order to appreciate the relationship of the parties, the geneolgy is stated on the next page. Once Satchidanandam had acquired property mentioned in items Nos I to 5 of the schedule attached to the plaint. He died on 10-9-1907 leaving behind his widow Seetarattamma, and two sons, Brahmanandam and Suryalingam. Brahmanandam was given in adoption to the brother of Satchldanandam also named Brahmanandam. The other son. Suryalingam married a girl named Annapurnamma Suryalingam died in May, 1922 leaving behind his widow, Annapurnamma who was 13 years of age at that time. Annapurnamma, therefore, inherited the property of Suryalingam as the sole heir. But Seetarattamma who was the mother of Suryalingam, on the basis of the alleged authority given to her under a will dated 6-2-1907, executed by her husband Satchldanandam, adopted Suryalingeswara Rao on 19-11-53. He is the 1st defendant in the suit. Satchdanandam appointed his two brothers, Viswanadham and Suryanarayana as executors, and Seetarattamma was permitted to adopt a boy with the consent of these two brothers, in case his line was threatened. By the time Seetarattamma adopted Suryalingeswara Rao, the two brothers who were the executors had died. It may be mentioned that Seetarattamma died on 16-10-61 and Annapurnamma died on 5-1-65. On the basis of the alleged adoption, the 2nd defendant in the present suit who is the real father of Suryalingeswara Rao filed a suit being O.S. No. 288/53 on the file of the High PERURI NARAIAH <IMG>JUDGEMENT_331_APLJ2_1975Image1.jpg</IMG> Court of Madras and later numbered as O,S. No. 1024/54 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for recovery of possession cf property from Annapurnamma. in that suit, the defence set up by Annapurnamma was that in fact there was no adoption and in the alternative even if the adoption is proved to have taken place, such adoption would be invalid because she was the sole heir of Suryalingam. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was arrived at between the parties whereby Annapurnamma was induced to giv* away all her rights in tha suit properties in favour of Suryalingtswara Rao for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. and a decree was passed in terms of that compromise. In execution of the compromise decree, the 1st defendant herein through his real father and guardian, defendant No, 2 was put in possession of the plaint schedule properties. Plaintiff No. I claims herself to be: the nearest reversioner on the grouad that she is the niece of Satchidanandam and, therefore, the nearest heir to Suryalingam under the provisions of trie Hindu Succession Act. 1956. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 also claim to be the heirs according to the law prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the adoption of defendant No. I by Seeterattamma without the consent of the two executors is not valid. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that since Suryalingam the real son of Satchidanandam had died leaving behind his widow. Annapurnamma, the power to adopt given to Seetarattamma came to an end; and, therefore, the adoption was not valid. The plaintiffs also contend that they were not parties to the said suit which ended in acompromiso and therefore, they are not bound by the decree therein. They also allege that the properties left behind by iuryalingam were worth about Rs: 1,00,000/- and transfer- ing the property in favour of Suryalingeswara Rao for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was not in the Interests of the estate and was unreasonable. These plaintiffs therefore, prayed for a decree in their favour. Defendants Nos. 3 to 8 are the tenants; therefore, they were made parties to the suit.

(3.) Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in their written statement pleaded that Satchidanandam gave his widow 'Seetarattamma, the power to adopt a boy with the approval of the two executors of the will The death of these two pxecutors would not make the adoption of Defendant No1 invalid. it was their plea that the power to adopt "hat was given to Seetarattamma did not come to an end on the death of her son, Suryallngam who left behind a minor widow, Annapuranamma who was only 13 years of age at the time of Suryslingam's death, as she was not competent to continue the line at that time. They also pleaded that after the death of Suryalingam. his widow Annapurnamma was leading openly an immoral life and had brought forth illegitimate issues and, consequently, she had lost all her rights to continue the line. This aspect of the written statement was amended later when the defendants set up the plea that Annapuranamma had married one Venkata Rao and was living with him at Bilaspur; that she had two sons and a daughter through him, and that therefore, she ceased to have any right in the suit property as such the suit property had devolved on Seetarattamma on the re-marriage of Annapurnamma. With regard to the compromise decree in O.S. No. 1024/54 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, It was pleaded that it was reasonable, bona fide, and in the interests of the estate and. therefore it was binding upon Annapurramma as well as the estate she represented. In the alternative, it was also pleaded that this compromise decree was a family settlement and in furtherance thereof, the property in possession of Annapurnamma was given in possession of Defendant No. 1 as the adopted son of Satchidanand even before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. They finally pleaded that on the re-marriage of Annapurnamma the suit properly devolved on Seetarattamma, and after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 she had acquired absolute rights in the property Seetarattamma had beqeathed the entire property in favour of the 1st defendant under a will dated 20-5-61. They, therefore, pleaded for the dismissal of the suit. Defendants Nos. 3 to 8 remained exparte. On the basis of these pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues and after trial dismissed the suit.