DANGETI APPANNA Vs. DANGETI VENKATARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The following pedigree shows the relationship between the parties : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_659_ANDHWR2_1956Image1.jpg</IMG> The lands in suit are shroff service inam lands of Gollaprole. They are presettlement service inam in which the reversionary rights vested with the Government. The plaintiffs sued for partition of the service inam lands for the allotment and separate possession of one out of four shares for the two plaintiffs and the 8th defendant together. Past and future profits were also claimed.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs was that the shroff service inam lands were enjoyed by Narayya, their paternal grandfather till his death in 1931. There after the lands devolved upon his four sons, of whom the ist defendant was the eldest. After the death of Narayya, mutation of the lands was effected in the revenue accounts of the zamindari in the names of the 1st defendant and his brothers Kamalanabudu and Ramulu, the name of the last brother Suryanafayanamurthi having been omitted by mistake. The family had to pay some debts and had also to realise some outstandings. The 1st defendant being the eldest member of the family was asked by the other members to collect the outstanding and to discharge the debts from such collections as well as from the income of the service inam lands. The 1st defendant conceived the idea of claiming the entire service inam lands for himself and filed a suit O.S. No. 68 of 1939 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Peddapuram for cancelling the entry of the names of his brothers Kamalanabhudu and Ramuluin the revenue registers. That suit was dismissed on 29th January, 1942. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the 8th defendant as well as Kamalanabhudu who died in 1942, had been making demands on the 1st defendant for partition of the inam lands into four equal shares and for delivery of possession of one such share to the plaintiffs and the 8th defendant. As the 1st defendant refused to comply with the plaintiff's demand, they instituted the present suit for partition.

(3.) According to the 1st defendant, succession to the office of shroff was governed by the law of lineal primogeniture according to the custom of the family as evidenced by the devolution of the office in the past. The 1st defendant was appointed to the office of shroff when Narayya resigned the post in 1924 and none of his brothers laid any claims to the office or was doing the service or enjoying the inam lands. The 1st defendant therefore denied the rights of the plaintiffs to a share in the lands. He also pleaded that the suit was in effect one for the rcovery of emoluments attached to the office of shroff and that the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit was taken away by sections 13 and 21 of Madras Act III of 1895. He denied that he was in possession of the service inam lands under an arrangement between him and his brothers for the purpose of discharging the family debts from the income of the lands. He alleged that he discharged the debts of his own accord with his own resources. The names of his brothers Kamalanabhudu and Ramulu were, according to the 1st defendant, improperly entered in the inam B register at the instance of the Karnam who was inimically disposed towards him. He admitted that the suit O.S. No. 68 of 1939 filed by him for cancellation of the names of his brothers in the inam B register was dismissed, but stated that he had preferred A.S. No. 75 of 1942 on the file of the Sub-Court of Kakinada against that decision. It may be stated that A. S. No. 75 of 1942 has since been decided confirming the judgment of the trial Court in O.S. No. 68 of 1939. Nevertheless, the first defendant claimed that neither his brothers, nor the sons of his brothers had any right to the service inam lands. He also pleaded that he had been in sole and exclusive possession of the lands and had perfected his title thereto by adverse possession and that the suit was barred by limitation and had to be dismissed on that ground. It was also argued by him that the mesne profits claimed were far in excess of the actual receipts.