NARADA BHARATA REDDY Vs. SUNKURU MUKUNDA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal and revision arise out of an interlocutory order dated 20-8-1963 passed by the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur, under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The aggrieved party was not quite sure as to whether an appeal or revision lay and hence he took the precaution of filing a revision as well as an appeal. They are both disposed of in this judgment.

(2.) ONE L. Pappayya died some time in 1932 leaving some properties and heirs as described in the genealogical tree given below :The appellant petitioner Narada Bharata Reddy was first married to Kanthamma and after her death, to Chandramma. After the death of Chandramma, he has married Gangamma who had a son named Dalayya through her first husband Chandrayya. The respondent opposite party is none else but the maternal grand-father of the three minor children of Salayya. He filed an application for being appointed guardian of the properties of the minor children of Salayya, alleging that the properties belonged to Dalayya and that after his death on 6-5-1963 they came into the possession of his two widows, (mothers of the minors). There was also a prayer for appointment of an interim receiver for the management of the minors' properties pending the disposal of the guardianship application. This prayer was obviously made in pursuance of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act. It was strenuously opposed by the appellant petitioner Bharata Reddy who urged that the properties did not belong to Dalayya, that they were all along in his possession as the husband of Gangamma and that, consequently the Court had no jurisdiction to pass any interim order which would have the effect of dispossessing him from the properties. This matter was heard at some length by the learned Subordinate Judge before whom both parties filed certain documents in support of their rival claims, as to who was in actual possession of the properties. The learned Subordinate Judge held that there was prima facie evidence to show not only title but also possession of the disputed properties remained with the minors and hence he appointed a Receiver.

(3.) FOR these reasons I maintain the order of the Lower Court and dismiss both the appeal and revision with costs. There will be one consolidated hearing fee of Rs. 100.00. Appeal and revision dismissed.