MUDDANNA ADENNA Vs. MUDDANNA SUBANNA (DEAD)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for partition, defendants 1, 2 and 4 are the appellants.

(2.) The relation between the parties is shown in the following pedigree:

(3.) The parties belong to the Kamma sect of the Sudra caste. They belong to a village, Enamadala, in the Narasaraopet taluq of the Guntur district. The family is admittedly a rich family. There were originally four brothers. The eldest of them, Lakshmayya, was said to have divided himself from the family long ago. (D.W.-30 years according to Exhibit XLVI.) It is admitted in the plaint that the other three brothers remained undivided till 1908. The eldest of them, Ramanna had a son, Naganna, who died in about April 1908, leaving his widow the 7 defendant. Up to this event, the members of the family were living in the most friendly terms, according to both sides. It is said for the plaintiff that misunderstandings arose on the death of Naganna followed by that of his infant daughter. This is denied by the defendants, who say that, up to Ramanna's death, the brothers continued to be on the most amicable terms. Ramanna died on 27 October, 1908. On the 13th November, 1908, the village officers sent Exhibit II, a pouthi report, in which they reported that the deceased Ramanna adopted the son of his brother Subbanna and willed away whole of his property to him. It also mentions that the deceased and his brothers were divided. Though the date of the will is mentioned as 25th October, 1908, neither the date of the adoption nor the date of division was mentioned. It may be observed that, if a pattadar dies, the village officers have to report the name of the heir of the pattadar so that his name may be entered in the Revenue accounts. If the deceased left an adopted son he stands in the place of his father, whether the family is divided or undivided; there is no purpose in mentioning the divisions and as all the property is ancestral property also the will is redundant to confer title to the son and is void for any other purpose. Exhibit II was received at the Tahsildar's office on the 26 November, and on the 30 the Tahsildar passed an order that the adopted son's name should be included. There is nothing to show that notice was given to the 1 defendant before the report was sent or the order was passed. At the same time it is conceded for the 1st defendant that the adoption of Veerayya (5 defendant) was openly set up on the last day of the funeral ceremonies of the deceased (called pedda dinam or big day) (vide Exhibit XXXV, deposition of 1 defendant). The 1 defendant sent a petition "10 or 15 days afterwards" (see Exhibit XXXV). This petition was destroyed in the Kotappakonda riots but it must have been sent prior to 6 January, 1909 (Exhibit LXII, paragraph 8). On 2nd April, 1909, the 1 defendant sent two petitions, one for himself and the other on behalf of his son Narasayya (now the 3 defendant) (Exhibit IV.)