KODUKULA SUBBA RAJU Vs. KODUKULA KAMESWARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN unwise yet unabated traditional acrimonious blow of breeze between the adopted son and the adoptive mother is apparent in this appeal. The first defendant adopted son is the appellant. The first respondent adoptive mother is the plaintiff. She laid the suit for partition and separate possession of her one fourth share against the appellant and the third defendant and for rendition of accounts against the natural fathers of the appellant and the third defendant viz., defendants 2 and 4, impleading the fifth defendant, her mother -in -law. She also claimed Rs. 50,000/ - from defendants 2 and 4. Pending the suit, the fifth defendant died succeeded by the third defendant thereby became entitled to half share in the plaint schedule property. The trial Court granted a preliminary decree declaring her one -fourth share in the plaint 'A' schedule property and to deliver possession thereof. It also decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,500/ - against the second and third defendants towards her 1/4th share of profits for the year 1968 -69 and disallowed the rest of the claim, which has become final. The appellant is resisting the decree. The facts are as follows: One A. Narasimham had two natural sons, Apparao and Subbarayudu. Apparao predeceased him. The widow of Apparao obtained a maintenance decree with a charge against the joint family properties. Subbarayudu also predeceased Narsimham on September 23, 1951. The appellant was adopted on November 1, 1952 under Ex. B -1 registered adoption deed of the even date, as per the custom pursuant to a written registered permission dated March 3, 1952 given by Narasimham. The adoption is not in dispute. The fact remains that he is the adopted son. Since his two sons predeceased him, Narasimham also adopted to himself the third defendant. The fourth defendant is the natural father of the third defendant and the second defendant is the natural father of the appellant. Narasimham died on October 1955 and his widow is the 5th defendant. It is the case of the first respondent that on the demise of her husband Subbarayudu, she had half share in his estate as woman's estate under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. Her father -in -law permitted her to adopt the appellant to perform the religious ceremonies to her husband. On November 4, 1952, under Ex. B -11 Narasimham purported to have executed a registered settlement deed allowing the first respondent to enjoy the produce of one -fourth estate for life with vested remainder in favour of the appellant. But all of them continued to live as members of Hindu undivided joint family. The settlement under Ex. B -11 is not binding on her and is of no consequence and it is only an advisory.

(2.) DURING the life time of Narasimham, he purchased jointly, item 5 of plaint 'A' schedule property (Ac. 4 -00) on May 1, 1954 under Ex. B -2 in his name and in the name of the appellant represented by the first respondent as guardian. Similarly, the second and fourth defendants purchased item 6 of the plaint 'A' schedule (Ac. 4 -00) jointly in the name of the appellant and the third defendant, under Ex. B -12 dated April 17, 1965 and Ex. B -13 dated July 12, 1967 (two acres each). They are also the joint family properties and neither the appellant nor the third defendant has any exclusive title therein. Plaint 'A' schedule properties are the landed properties. Since the decree dismissing the suit to render account became final, we find no need to traverse the pleadings and evidence adduced in that regard and the findings thereon. Issuance of a registered notice Ex. A -1 dated March 21, 1969 and followed by a reply notice though conceding for a partition yield no fruition except to lay the suit.

(3.) AFTER framing appropriate issues and adduction of evidence, the trial Court found that the settlement deed Ex. B -11 is not binding on the 1st respondent; items 5 and 6 of Plaint 'A' schedule properties are the joint family properties. On those findings, the preliminary decree has been granted for the reliefs referred to above. The plaint was amended in this Court and removed obscurity in it regarding the binding nature of Ex. B -11 and her acquisition of absolute rights under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Amended plaint and written statement were filed.