DEVULAPALLI VENKATA SUBBA ROW Vs. KOLLURI SATYANARAYANAMURTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No point of law arises in this appeal except in connection with items 1-19 and 25 of plaint schedule A.

(2.) These were originally karnam service inam lands and were enfranchised in 1906 in the name of 1st defendant who was then holding" the office of karnam. Second plaintiff and first defendant belong to what was originally the same joint family in which the post of karnam vested. According to the plaint partition never took place; but it is found as a fact that a partition did take place about 1874 and that 2nd plaintiff s brisance and 1st defendant s branch then became divided and have been living separately since. It is however contended that this does not affect plaintiff s claim to a share of the service inam lands on enfranchisement.

(3.) As it is expressed in paragraph 13 of the plaint, "The enfranchisement of the properties converts them into family property and enures for the benefit of all the members of the service holder s family existing at the time of enfranchisement whether divided or undivided."