GANDI RAMASWAMI Vs. PURAMSETTI PEDAMUNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this Second Appeal arises was brought by one Peramma to establish her right to certain inam land and to recover possession after ejecting the defendants. Her case was that the suit property belonged to her father Bapulu, that after his death her mother Venkamma enjoyed the land and that on Venkamma s death, the plaintiff became entitled to the land as daughter of Bapulu but that the defendants prevented her from taking possession.

(2.) The defendants alleged that Bapulu had made over the land to one Rattam, the husband of the third defendant, to do the Inam service for him over fifty years before suit, and that their family had held the land and done service ever since.

(3.) The plaintiff Peramma died pending the suit and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 were then brought on record as being her legal representatives. The plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 are the grandsons of Bapulu s brother. Both the lower Courts on the merits have given a decree in favour of the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 and it is conceded by the present appellants that on the findings of fact arrived at by the lower Courts the decree in favour of the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 cannot be impeached. They contend, however, that upon the death of Peramma, the suit abated and that the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 could not be added as legal representatives of the deceased Peramma or continue the suit, as they claim, not as legal representatives of Peramma but as reversioners of the last male holder, i.e., Bapulu. The lower Appellate Court relying upon the cases Premmoyi Choudhrani v. Preonath Dhur (1896) I.L.R. Calc. 636, Rikhai Rai v. Sheo Pujan Singh (1911) I.L.R. 33 All. 15, Tribhuwan Sundar Kuar v. Sri Narain Singh (1898) I.L.R. 20 All. 341 and Mussamut Parbutty v. Mussamut Higgin (1872) 17 W.R. 475, held that the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 were rightly added as plaintiffs and the question for determination is whether that decision is correct or not.