KONCHADA LAXMINARAYAN SUBUDHI Vs. KONCHADA PADMANAV SUBUDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are in appeal against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Berhampur dismissing their suit for possession and mesne profits. THE plaintiffs laid claim on the footing that they were reversioners. THE genealogy appended below shows the mutual relationship. THE four brothers Bhavanna, Gangadhar, Pandayya, and Venkayya were admittedly separate. Pandayya died in 1925. His adopted son Rajgopalam had predeceased him leaving behind a widow Sundaramma who died on 15/7/1965 Rajgopalam's son Adinarayanna died in 1928. He had left a widow Satyamma who lived up to 1943. THE present dispute is in relation to properties of Pandayya Subudhi. Venkayya left behind two sons Nilakantham and Rajgopalam. Rajgopalam had been taken in adoption by Pandayya. THE two sons of Nilakantham are the plaintiffs. Gangadhar's branch became extinct. Defendants 3 and 4 are the grandsons of Bhavanna. Sundaramma adopted defendant No. 1 on 17-3-1965 and acknowledged the adoption by a deed dated 20th of March, 1965 (Ext. B) and conveyed valuable properties to the first defendant. On 15th of March, 1965 she made a registered deed of settlement in favour of the second defendant who happens to be the mother of the first defendant conveying properties to her. THE plaintiffs contend that there has been no valid adoption and Sundaramma had no right to adopt. It is also contended that Sundaramma had no right to alienate the property of Adinarayanna, the last male holder. Defendants 3 and 4 supported the plaintiffs. THE real contest came from defendants 1 and 2. According to the contesting defendants, the adoption was valid. Sundaramma had the right to adopt and as a matter of fact, defendant No. 1 was taken in adoption in accordance with law. By registered agreement dated 31-7-1934 filed in O. P. No. 30 of 1934 (the pauper proceedings), Sundaramma had received the properties upon the death of Satyamma and she became full owner under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act. THE other allegations of the plaintiffs were denied.

(2.) THE learned trial Judge upheld the adoption both in fact and in law. He found that Sundaramma had got absolute title to the property under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act.