BERA CHANDRAMMA (WIFE OF LACHANNA) Vs. CHANDRAM NAGANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is in ejectment. The plaintiff was a purchaser in Court-auction in O.S. No. 627 of 1911 of the suit property and he got possession; but the defendants, who were tenants, refused to execute a lease and claimed occupancy rights from seven persons who, they said, were the Inamdars. The suit lands were nautch Inam lands, and the Inam was enfranchised in the name of Maddila Gangayya and Maddila Basayya by Ex. C in 1864. Adeyya and Chellayya were two members of the families of these two original Inamdars, and they mortgaged the property as theirs and the decree under which the sale took place was against them.

(2.) The lower Courts have found that these two were members of a dancing girl family of which there were nine members living and the District Munsif, on remand for a finding, held that Adeyya and Chellayya were entitled only to 5/9ths, that this was all they had power to mortgage and that this was all the plaintiff could recover. The lower appellate Court accepted the finding that the mortgage would only bind the share of these two, but disagreed with the lower Court that there was no custom amongst the dancing girls caste for females to share with the males; and, holding that the custom had been established that females share equally with the males, he decreed only 2/9ths to the plaintiff.

(3.) Both the Courts held against an alleged partition and we are bound by that finding.