UPPALA SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. UPPALA KANAKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal raises a point relating to the applicability of Article 127 of the Indian Limitation Act.

(2.) The question that falls to be determined arises under the following circumstances. One Upnnla Basavayya had two sons by name Veerayya and Raghavayya, the first son, Veerayya, having pre-deceased him. Basavayya died in the year 1949. Veerayya died in 1927, leaving behind him his widow, Ankamma, and the plaintiff who was born on 1/01/1925. Sometime after his death, the plaintiffs mother and her father thought that it was not conducive to the interests of the minor (the plaintiff) and his mother to continue to live in the family house at Guntur and that it was better for them to live with the plaintiffs grandfather in Krishna District. For that reason, the maternal grand-father of the plaintiff executed a document relinquishing the plaintiffs one-third share in the family properties for a consideration of Rs. 750.00, under Ex. B-3 dated 9/01/1928. The circumstances under which the guardians of the plaintiff were obliged to part with the share of the plaintiff were set out in Ex. B-

(3.) It was also recited in the document that the idea in relinquishing the one-third share of the plaintiff to the other members of the family was to acquire properties of equal value in the village of his maternal grand-father, who had already given two acres of land to his daughter, the plaintiffs mother. Ever since, the plaintiff was living with his mother in his maternal grand-fathers house, who seemed to have brought him up with affection and looked after his interests with great care. The maternal grand-feeder of the plaintiff passed away in 1940 without purchasing any property as mentioned in Ex. B-3. However, at the time of his death, he executed a will bequeathing all his properties worth more than Rs. 2,500.00 to the plaintiff. The paternal uncle of the plaintiff, Raghavayya, died in 1951 bequeathing all his properties to the defendants and the plaintiff under a will. 3. A few months thereafter, the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen, for partition of the suit properties on the assertion that they belong to the joint Hindu family of which he was a member. The suit was resisted inter alia on the defence that it was barred by limitation. The trial court accepting the plea as to limitation dismissed the suit. This was confirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Guntur. Aggrieved by that judgment, the plaintiff has brought the second appeal.