MANEPALLI SATTEMMA Vs. MANEPALLI SATYANARAYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The problem we are called upon to solve in these three revision petitions arising out of three suits brought by the respondents herein before the Deputy Collector, Amalapuram is whether Section 12 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895) is hit by Article 16 of the Constitution.

(2.) The facts leading to the present litigation, may be shortly stated. The lands which constitute the emoluments of blacksmith and carpenter service and which are the subject-matter of the three suits lie in the villages of Godilanka and Mogallamuri, East Godavari District. The inams situate in the first of the two villages were being enjoyed by one Pilladi Brahmalingam as the last male-holder, while those in Mogallamuri were enjoyed by Godi Viramma, the widow of Godi Veerareddi. One Pilladi Subbarayudu had a son and two daughters, Pilladi Brahmalingam and Sattemma and Viramma. Sattemma was married to Manepalli Ramanna and they had two sons, Subbarayudu and Buchanna; the plaintiffs, the sons of Subbarayudu, the first-defendant-petitioner herein, the widow of Buchanna. It would be seen that Subbarayudu and Buchanna were the sister's sons of Veeramma and Brahmalingam.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that after the death of Brahmalingam his sister's sons i.e., Subbarayudu and Buchanna took possession of the properties attached to the carpenter and Blacksmith service and rendered services in that behalf and Viramma also took their help in regard to the management of the properties and discharge of the duties of Blacksmith and carpenter. Subsequent to the death of Viramma in 1947, the brothers took possession of the service inams and discharged the duties of carpenter and blacksmith. Subbarayudu died on 24-11-1950 while Buchanna expired on 2-3-1956. On the death of Subbarayudu, his sons, the two plaintiffs and the second defendant, enjoyed these inams along with Buchanna as members of a joint Hindu Family and they were constrained to bring the suits as the defendant - the widow of Buchanna claimed the inams as her personal properties by virtue of a gift deed executed by her husband, Buchanna.