PENDEKKALLU THIMMAYYA Vs. PENDEKKALLU SIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first point taken is that, on the date of suit, the plaintiff had no title to the property, as two of the daughters or the original owner, Timmayya, were alive and they were entitled to the property in spite of the relinquishment of their rights in favour of Nagamma. It is contended that their relinquishment did not involve the loss of their right to take by survivorship to Nagamma. This would really depend upon the nature and extent of the relinquishment. If they expressly relinquished their right to take the estate after the death of Nagamma, they could not, in our opinion take it subsequently on the ground of survivorship, but it will pass to the heirs of Timmayya as if all the daughters were dead, that is, in this case, to the daughters sons, the plaintiff and Hanumanthu.

(2.) Here, however, there is no deed of relinquishment and it is not possible on the facts to say positively whether the relinquishment involved the loss of right to enjoy the property on Nagamma's death.

(3.) We would, therefore, assume that, at the date of suit, the plaintiff's title is not established. In this connect on reliance was placed by the appellant on the case in Muthiyalu Chengappa V/s. Burada Gunta 60 Ind. Cas. 135 : 43 M. 855 : 39 M.L.J. 567 : 12 L.W. 656 : 28 M.L.T. 272 : (1921) M.W.N. 29. With all respect to the learned Judges, we feel considerable doubt as to its correctness. We need not, however, deal further with that case on the view we are taking of the effect of relinquishment.