SAGILI PEDDA RAMI REDDI Vs. NARREDDI GANGIREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question to be decided in this Second Appeal is one of succession to the properties of one C. Subbayya, who died in 1906 or 1907, leaving a widow Narakka, who died in October 1918. The plaintiff is a vendee (under a sale-deed, dated 14 October, 1919) from A. Venkatareddi and Balireddi, who are the mother's sister's sons of Subbayya. The District Munsif found that Subbayya has also left his mother's brother's son, but held, relying on Appandai Vathiar v. Bagupali Mudaliar [1910] 33 Mad. 439, that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed. The Subordinate Judge confirmed his judgment. The defendants file this Second Appeal and contend that the mother's brother's son is entitled to priority, over the mother's sister's son, under the Hindu Law. They point out that the decision in Appandai Vathiar V/s. Bagubali Mudaliar [1910] 33 Mad. 439 has been dissented from in Bam Charan Lal V/s. Rahim Baksh [1916] 38 All. 416, and it must be regarded as shaken, if not overruled by the decision in Vedachela Mudaliar v. Subramania Mudaliar A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 33.

(2.) The question is one relating to the succession of Bandhus. It is desirable to clear the ground, by stating the principles of succession among bandhus at least such of them as may help to solve the question.

(3.) There is no doubt as to the meaning of the term "bandhu" for purposes of succession. Though only some bandhus are enumerated in the well known ancient Smriti text (attributed variously to Vriddha Satatapa and Baudhayana), it has been laid down that the enumeration is not exhaustive and that it includes all bhinnagotra sapihdas : see Gridhari Lal Roy V/s. The Bengal Government [1867-69] 12 M.I.A. 448 and Ramachandra Martand Waiker V/s. Vinayak Venkatesh Kothekar A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 1.