LAWS(APH)-1959-10-3

NANNAPANENI VENKATA SUBBA RAO Vs. THUMMALA BHUJANGAYYA DIED

Decided On October 19, 1959
NANNAPANENI VENKATA SUBBA RAO Appellant
V/S
THUMMALA BHUJANGAYYA (DIED) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate judge, Bapatla in O. S. No. 145 of 1952.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. The plaintiff had 9 daughter by name Damayanti. She was married to the defendant on /-4-1939. She died intestate and issueless on 28-8-1952. On 4-12-1952, the plaintiff instituted the above suit for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs. 51,506-9-7. According to the case pleaded in the plaint, the plaintiff gave a cash katnam of Rs. 25,000.00 to the defendant at the time of the marriage and announced a gift of 10 acres of land in Penumudi village as Pasupukunkuma to the bride; that subsequent to the marriage the defendant represented to him that he would prefer to purchase a land in his village and that in the years 1940 and 1941, he paid him two sums of Rs. 5,000.00 and Rs. 6,000.00 towards the value of the said land; that he also gave his daughter the jewels shown in Schedules A and A-1 and certain other presents in kind, such as silverware, brassware, and furniture mentioned in Schedules B and B-1; and that the several sums and the movables together with the accretions thereto are in the possession of the defendant. The plaintiff sought recovery of these various sums on the basis of a caste custom prevalent in the Kamma community in the Andhra area, and more particularly in the Districts of Krishna and Guntur.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. He denied the existence of the custom pleaded by the plaintiff. According to him, only a sum of Rs. 20000.00 was paid to him towards katnam, Rs. 18,000.00 at the time of the marriage and Rs. 2,000.00 subsequently. He denied the receipt of the balance of Rs. 5,000.00 towards katnam as also the payment of Rs. 11,000.00 towards the value of the land. He averred that Damavanti did not leave the jewels at his house. He admitted the existence of some of the items of movables but denied the existence of the rest.