PENUMARTHY VEERA PANASA RAMANNA Vs. PENUMARTHY SAMBAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal against respondents 1 to 5 arising out of the judgment and decree of the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Eluru. The suit was for ejectment of the respondents from the A and B scheduled properties and to put the appellant in possession of the same, to direct the 1st respondent to pay Rs. 4253-14-9 towards mesne profits and interest on the A scheduled properties and further to direct respondents 2 to 5 to nay the appellant Rs. 163-2-1 as mesne profits and interest on the B schedule proper-ties and further to direct payment of interest on the said amounts and costs of the suit. The following genealogical table will help in the understanding of the contentions raised in this appeal.Penumarti PanasayyaFenumarti(died in 1891)Narayanamurthi=Papayl (died 1940) (died in 1885)= BapanammaAdopted son Venkanna (died 1943).= Rattamma (died 1907)IVeera Pauasa Ramanna (adopted on 9-6-1948) (Plaintiff-appellant)It will be seen from the above genealogy that Panasayya and Narayanamurthi were brothers and it is admitted that they formed a Hindu joint family owning and enjoying A and B scheduled properties along with other properties. The allegations of the appellant were that Narayanamurthi died undivided with his brother; that after his death Panasayya gave the A and B scheduled properties to Bapanamma, widow of Narayanamurthi, for maintenance for life to be reverted after her death to Panasayya Or to his legal representative if he should predecease her; that Panasayya died in 1891 and Bapanamma died in 1943; that Venkanna was adopted by Panasayya during his life-time which fact was stated in his registered will dated 18-3-1891 by which he appointed his wife Papayi as guardian of the said adopted son, that Venkanna became entitled along with Panasayya to the joint family properties, that after the death of Panasayya, Papayi managed the properties of the adopted son during her life-time and died in 1940, that Venkanna died issueless leaving his widow Rattamma, that Rattamma adopted the appellant on 9-6-1948 with the consent of one of her husbands nearest reversioners, Penurnarti Kamanna, the other nearest reversioner Penumarti Ramanna having improperly and illegally refusing his consent and that on the death of Bapanamma in 1943, Rattamma land the plaintiff-appellant had become entitled to the plaint A and B scheduled properties with a right to recover possession of the same with mesne profits from persons who were in possession of the said properties.It is further alleged that Bapanamma sold the A scheduled properties to Panumarti Sattiraju and his wife, the parents of 1st respondent under a sale deed dated 14-3-1923 alleging that the was entitled to the same as her own properties, that Sattiraju and his wife having died, the 1st respondent is in possession of the same, that further on the same date 14-3-1923, the said Bapanamma sold the B schedule properties to one Nuni Ammanna; that on Amrnannas death his son Sarvarayudu sold the properties Somanchi Lakshminarayana who subsequently sold them to Kanipc Naganna and Mahalakshmi, both of whom sold said property to Kanipe Anjaneyulu, and that on the death of Anjaneyulu the property is in possession of his widow the 2nd respondent and her three sons respondents 3 to 5.The appellant averred that the recitals in the sale deeds by Bapanamma that the properties were her own properties were not true; that Panasayya and his representatives have a vested right in the same and were entitled to them subject to the lite interest of Bapanamma and that the two sale deeds do not bind him and consequently he is entitled to recover the properties with profits and costs.The appellant further denied the allegations made by the 1st respondent, jn reply to the notice issued by the appellants lawyer, that Narayanamurty and Panassayya were divided brothers and on their division the A schedule properties fell to the share of Narayanamurty and on his death they devolved on his widow Bapanamma and averred that in any case he is entitled to both A and B scheduled PROPERTIES as he had become the nearest reversioner to Narayanamurthy by reason of his adoption; and as such the alienations are not binding on him. The several other allegations made in the reply notice by the 1st respondent regarding the previous litigation between the reversioners of Narayanamurty and the 1st respondents parents, the arbitration enquiry and the settlement of the dispute, as also the allegations relating to adoption, the registered will, were all denied.

(2.) The 1st respondent in his written statement denied that Panasayya and Narayanamurthy were members of a joint family or that they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the A and B scheduled properties or other properties passed by survivorship to Panasayya. He asserted that Panasayya and Narayanamurthy divided the properties in their lifetime and were in separate possession and enjoyment; that the plaint A scheduled properties fell to the share of Narayanamurthy and after his death Panasayya was not entitled to them cither by survivorship or by inheritance as Narayanamurthys widow Bapanamma was alive she having been in possession of these properties and entitled to a Widows estate.The allegation that Panasayya gave these properties to Bapanamma for maintenance for life and on her death they reverted to Panasayya were also denied. So also the adoption of Venkanna and the fact of the execution or the validity of the will dated 18-3-1891 were denied. It was further alleged that neither Venkanna, nor his widow Rattamma had any connection with Panasayyas branch; that after the death of Panasayya, Papayi was in possession of Panasayyas properties till 1940 during which time she never set up or asserted any claim to the plaint A and B scheduled properties as the widow of Panasayya; that the adoption by Rattamma of the appellant on 9-6-1948 was invalid, firstly by reason of the consent of one of the reversioners baing obtained by illegal consideration, and secondly because there was no giving and taking of the appellant; that as the properties were sold on 14-3-1923 before the adoption of the appellant (which alleged adoption having taken place after the death of Bapanamma) the alienations by Bapanamma were valid and the estate having vested already in a stranger, the appellant cannot question the alienation as he has no locus-standi. The written statement of the 1st respondent further stated certain facts relating to the disputes between the reversioners and the alienees arid the suits between them and their settlement etc. Respondents 2 to 5 remained absent and were set ex parte.

(3.) The trial Court framed 56 issues, but it is not necessary in this appeal to concern ourselves with all of them, except to say that on the main issues the trial Court held that Panasayya and Narayanamurthy were members of an undivided family, that they dad become divided during their life-time; that the plaint A and B schedule properties fell to Narayanamurthys share; that after Narayanamurthys death the Widow succeeded to them; that the allegation that A and B schedule properties were given by Panasayya to Bapanamma after the death of Nanarayanamurthy for her maintenance with a life estate was untrue; that the adoption of Venkanna by Panasayya and the alleged execution of the will by Panasayya dated 18-3-1891 were not proved.With respect to the adoption of the appellant by Rattamma, both the factum and its validity were held in favour of the appellant and that Rattamma did not abandon her right to adopt. On the issue as to whether the plaintiffs rights were barred by adverse possession the finding was against the plaintiff. On the further issues relating to the question whether the suit was maintainable by the plaintiff as he was not in existence at the time of Bapanammas death and in any view whether he was entitled under law to divest the estate which did not belong to his predecessors, the trial Court held against the plaintiff.