SANAGAVARAPU VENKATASUBBA RAO Vs. MYLAVARAPU KRISHNAMURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision in this appeal depends entirely on the construction of some clauses in a settlement deed executed by one Konappa in 1888, Ex. P-1. The situation at the time of making this settlement was that the two sons of Konappa. Subbarayudu and Krishnamurthy predeceased him leaving behind them their widows Gopalamma and Venkatesamma respectively. Subbarayudu had a daughter China Seshamma while Narasamma was the daughter of Krishnamurthy. Konappa had two daughters Pullamma and Seshamma. Pullamma had two sons Ventakatakrishnayya and Venkata Chalapathi. The relevant terms of the document which fall to be interpreted in this appeal are as follows :

(2.) Some time after the death of Gopalamma the two sons of Venkata Krishnayya laid an action for the recovery of five items of property of which items, 1, 3 to 5 of A Schedule covering an extent of Ac. 1-50 cents are now in dispute. To this suit are impleaded the three sons of Venkatachalapathi as defendants 1 to 3 and his grandsons as defendants 4 to 6, while the adopted son was added as the 7th defendant, defendants 8 to 11 being the lessees from the 7th defendant. The claim was made only in regard to half the share on the ground that the other half belonged to defendants 1 to 6 the descendants of Venkata Chalapathi. The chief basis of the claim as against the 7th defendant was that Seshamma died before the termination of the life-estate created in favour of Gopalamma and consequently the items in question reverted to the heirs of the donor.

(3.) The answer of the 7th defendant was that, as the adopted son of Seshamma, he became entitled to the property given to Seshamma. In the trial Court, the adoption of the 7th defendant was put in issue as the factum or the validity thereof was controverted. The trial Court negatived the claim of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 to these properties in the view that it was the issue of the donee Seshamma. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge differed from the District Munsif and upheld the right put forward by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 holding that an adopted son was excluded from the expression "Santhathi". The matter was taken in second appeal to the High Court of Madras. Justice Rajagopalan heard it, went into the question as to the nature of interest that was created in Seshamma. The conclusion reached by him was that the donor conferred only a life-estate on the adoptive mother of the 7th defendant and since she predeceased the first life-estate holder there was nothing to be transmitted to her heir the 7th defendant. In this view he thought it unnecessary to take up for adjudication the point whether Santhathi of Chinna Seshamma included an adopted son. In the result, he dismissed the second appeal. It is that judgment that is under appeal now under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.