PASPULATI LAKSHMAN RAO Vs. T NANDAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, in a suit for declaration that plaintiff is the nearest reversioner of the last male holder G. Narasing Rao and is entitled to the property of said Sri Rao with further prayer that the so called adoption of defendant No. 1 to Late G. Narasing Rao by his widow Laxmikantamma is invalid and further the will executed by Laxmikantamma is not valid and binding on the plaintiff.

(2.) According to the plaint case, G. Narasing Rao died on 3-10-1949 without leaving any issue. His widow was Laxmikantamma. Plaintiff is the nearest reversioner of Narasing Rao being the nephew of Narasing Rao's sister's son Simachalapatirao. The said Simachalapatirao died at Berhampur on 15-10-1962. There is no other nearest heir of G. Narasing Rao other than the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his uncle Simachalapatirao filed Title Suit No. 19/50 (renumbered as T. S. 1/54) against the widow of Narasing Rao along with several other persons for a declaration that Laxmikantamma was not the legally married wife of Narasing Rao and as such was not entitled to the property of Narasing Rao and also for a declaration that the will executed by Laxmikantamma on 15-10-1949 was not valid and binding. In the said suit, it was held that Laxmikantamma was the legally married wife of late Narasing Rao. It was also found that plaintiff was the reversioner of late Narasing Rao. It was further found that the property which stood in the name of Narasing Rao was his property and the property which stood in the name of Laxmikantamma was her acquired property. So far as the will dated 15-10-1949 is concerned, it was found that the same was not valid and binding on the plaintiff. It was directed in the suit that Laxmikantamma would continue to be in possession of the property which stood in her name. So far as property of her husband is concerned, she would also continue to hold those properties subject to rendering accounts. Against the said decree, the paternal uncle of the plaintiff had perferred an appeal to the High Court in forma pauperis, but that was dismissed for non-prosecution. According to the plaint allegations, defendant No. 2 was a shrewed man and after death of Narasing Rao forced his son into Narasing Rao's family on the basis of the illegal adoption alleged to have been made by Laxmikantamma after the death of her husband. The said adoption is invalid in eye of law, there being no consent of the sapinda of late Narasing Rao and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to succeed to the property of late Narasing Rao as the nearest reversioner.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. According to the written statement, the suit filed by the plaintiff and his paternal uncle (T. S. 19/50) renumbered as T. S. 1/54, was dismissed by the trial Court and the same was confirmed in appeal by the High Court. Thereafter the plaintiff and his uncle made desperate claims to the property of Narasing Rao. Laxmikantamma was the absolute owner of the property subsequent to the Hindu Succession Act coming into force. It was the specific plea of the defendants that Laxmikantamma took defendant No. 1 in adoption with the consent of the Sapinda and the relations of her husband and by adopting all formalities of giving and taking defendant No. 1 was duly adopted. Further a registered deed was executed on 24-4-1956 acknowledging the said adoption. Laxmikantamma had executed a Will Ext. H dated 22-12-1957 whereby she bequeathed all her stridhan in favour of defendant No. 1 and also half share of the property which she became entitled to as widow of Narasing Rao. Defendant No. 1 has thus become the sole owner of the property. All other allegations made in the plaint were denied.