MEDA VENGAMMA OF GUNKANAPALLY Vs. MITTA CHELAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff is a daughter of one Pedda Tippayya by his first wife and sues for the recovery of the properties mentioned in the schedules attached to the plaint. Pedda Tippayya had a brother named Chinna Tippayya and had married a second wife, Lakshmakka, who was only about ten years old at his death. She died in February 1905. The plaintiff s case is that Pedda Tippayya and Chinna Tippayya were divided in interest and that they effected an actual division of the moveable properties and the houses, but that the other properties remained in the joint enjoyment of both at the time of Pedda Tippayya s death in 1868. The plaint alleges that Lakshmakka, the widow of Pedda Tippayya took possession of his properties after his death in 1868 and that the 1st defendant, who joined Lakshmakka and was looking after her properties took possession of them on her death in 1905 and that he is wrongfully withholding it from the plaintiff. She denies that the 1st defendant who claims to have been adopted by Lakshmakka, was really adopted by her and that Lakshmakka had any authority to adopt him. The 2nd and the other defendants are made parties on the ground that they are in possession of some of the properties without any lawful title.

(2.) The 1st defendant contends that Pedda Tippayya and his brother Chinna Tippayya were undivided and that all the family properties devolved on Chinna Tippayya on the death of his brother, that Pedda Tippayya a few days before his death gave authority to Lakshmakka to make an adoption to him and that Chinna Tippayya also give authority to Lakshmakka to adopt any one of his own sons execept the first in the event of his begetting sons, or otherwise any other boy.. The 1st defendant further contends that Chinna Tippayya also agreed to give a half share of the properties to Lakshmakka and that subsequently the properties were divided. He further contended that he was adopted by Lakshmakka in the year 1881 and that he had since been in enjoyment of the properties obtained in the division in his own right as of other properties acquired by him subsequently apparently out of the income of the properties obtained at the division.

(3.) Issues were framed as to the question of the status of the two brothers, as to the capacity in which Lakshmakka took a half share in the properties as to the factum and validity of the adoption of the 1st defendant, as to limitation and as to the properties the plaintiff would be entitled to recover in case she was entitled to succeed as reversioner after the death of Lakshmakka.