DADIREDDI RAMIREDDI Vs. GUNNALA CHINNAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question that arises for decision in the above second appeals is as to whether the plaintiff has established his title as a reversioner to the estate of Venkata Subba Reddy who died on 15-9-1930. The pedigree is set out at page 8 in the District Munsif's judgment. One of the points debated in the Courts below was whether Vengal Reddy was the adopted son of Dadireddi Ramireddy and Venkata Reddy, father of Venkata Subba Reddy, was the adopted son of Obula reddy. The trial Court held that both the adoptions were established and that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suits. So far as the validity of the alienations were concerned, the trial Court held that as the alienations were not effected jointly by both the widows, i.e., defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration as prayed for. In the view taken by the Appellate Judge that the plaintiff has not established his title as a reversioner, no finding was recorded on the validity of the alienations and he allowed the appeals. The plaintiff has consequently preferred the second appeals.

(2.) As I propose to set aside the decrees passed by the appellate Court and direct the District Munsif to take additional evidence on the question of the plaintiff's title as a reversioner and submit it to the appellate Court, I do not propose to deal with the merits in detail. I shall, however, discuss certain legal questions, which were raised before me as to the admissibility of Exhibit A-1 and the admission of Exhibit B-1 as additional evidence by the lower appellate Court.

(3.) In support of the plaintiff's case that Vengal Reddy was adopted by Dadireddi Ramireddy, he produced an unregistered deed-of-adoption, dated 12-5-1872 and marked as Exhibit A-1. The objection that was taken by the contesting defendants was that the document was inadmissible inasmuch as it was not registered. From a perusal of the judgment, it is clear that no objection was taken that the provisions of section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act were not complied with and that the attestors and the scribe of the document had to be examined. On appeal, the District Judge took the view that the document was not only inadmissible for want of registration but also that it was not properly proved. Sri A. Bhujangarao the learned advocate for the appellant, strenuously contended that the Appellate Judge was wrong on both the grounds. I agree with his contention. The document Ex. A-1 provides that Vengal Reddy who was adopted should maintain his parents and that he should take the entire properties after their death. The District Judge was of the opinion that as a life estate was created in favour of the parents, the document had to be registered. In support of this view, he relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Pirsab Valad Kasimsab v. Gurappa Basappa I.L.R. 38 Bom. 227. Under the terms of the document which the learned Judges had to consider an interest was reserved to the wife of the adopter in the immovable property to which she otherwise would not have been entitled. So far as the document in the present case is concerned, the language is entirely different. The adoptive father was entitled to an undivided half share in the property and the adopted son by virtue of the adoption was equally entitled to the other undivided half share. I am unable to accept the view of the District Judge that a life estate was created in favour of the parent under the document. The decision of the Bombay High Court is consequently not applicable to the facts of the present case.