SARASA APPALAKONDA Vs. PULAMARASETTI SOMUNAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri K. Kanaka raju, the learned Counsel representing the appellants and Sri M. Ram Mohan, the learned Counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) SRI Kanaka Raju, the learned counsel representing Sri K. Subrahmanyam, the learned Counsel for the appellants had pointed out to the substantial questions of law which had been raised in Ground no. 12 of the grounds of appeal and would maintain that the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court had totally erred in recording findings relating to the nature of the property. The learned Counsel would maintain that when the origin of the property is not from the paternal side and from the other source, the same cannot be treated as ancestral property or joint family property and in this view of the matter, the findings are unsustainable and the second appeal is to be allowed. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions.

(3.) ON the contrary, Sri Ram Mohan, the learned Counsel representing the respondents would submit that it may be that the origin of the property at the stage of grandfather had been from other source and not from the paternal side, but, however, in the light of the facts and circumstances and also in the light of different provisions of the Hindu Succession act, 1956 which came into force subsequent thereto, by operation of law and since the succession already had opened as far as the father of the plaintiff is concerned, the same to be taken as the family property and the father to be construed as karta of the family and in the light of the same, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be found fault. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to certain passages from the standard text books while explaining the meaning of 'ancestral property' and also the meaning of 'joint family property' and further cited certain decisions.