MEDAVARAPU NARASAYYA Vs. MEDAVARAPU VEERAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He sued to recover portions of three survey fields Nos. 203, 266 and 294 in Petunee-dipalem hamlet of Anumunilanna from the defendants. Defendants 1 to 3 as will be seen from the genealogical table set out in pora. 3 of the lower appellate Court's judgment, are descendants of one Medavarapu Appayya (defendant 1 being the latter's son and defendants 2 and 3 grandsons). The plaintiff's case was that under the sale deed Ex. A dated 2 July, 1912 from one Ragamma he bought this property, which was subject to a registered lease, Ex. B, dated 3 June 1907 for 10 years executed in favour of this Appayya by Ragamma. Ex. A recites this lease deed as subsisting. The lessee on the termination of the lease in 1917 refused to deliver possession and hence this suit. The defence was a total denial of Ragamma's title and also of the alleged tenancy under Ex. B. The trial Court found that the defendants were estopped from denying. M. Appayya's tenancy under Ex. B, and that consequently it was not necessary to go into the more complicated question of Ragamma's title and decreed the suit. On appeal with the consent of both the parties and in order that there-might be a final adjudication in case the plaintiff failed in the matter of estoppel, a finding was called for on issue 3 which runs as follows: Who had been in possession of the suit lands and how long and under what title prior to the death of defendant l's husband?

(2.) It is admitted that "husband" is a clerical error for "father." In reply to this the learned District Munsif after a careful consideration of the documents came to the conclusion that they established Ragamma's title; but he did not deal with the title by adverse possession since he had already held the tenancy to be subsisting. The lower appellate Court found that there was no estoppel as regards tenancy and that Ragamma had no title and dismissed the suit; and against this decree this second appeal has been filed.

(3.) Some matters in connexion with this property may be mentioned in. their chronological order. The land in question is admittedly a part of an inam granted to one J. Tammeyya. Ex. E, is a copy of the title deed and it is in the plaintiff's possession. The extent of the inam therein mentioned is 10 acres 20 cents. Here we may turn to the genealogical tree set out in para. 3. It may perhaps be noted that it is only reconstructed on the materials available in the evidence and it cannot be taken that the seniority of any brothers or sisters mentioned there is necessarily the order in which they appear there. The contention of the plaintiff is that Tamayya of the inam deed is the propositus Zeopalli man" of the genelogical tree. (There is a slight error when in para. 4 of the lower appellate Court's judgment it is said that the plaintiff's contention was that the inamdar was Rangamma's father Thammayya). On the other hand the contention for the defendants was that the inamdar of the title deed was Thammayya, son of Venkataohalam, and they also disputed that the propositus Zeo-palli man had any third son Venkayya as alleged by the plaintiff. That naturally led to the question whether certain sales by the three sons of Venkataohalam or their representatives were of 1/9 of the inam according to the plaintiff's case or. of 1/3 according to the defendants case. It may be mentioned here that it is a necessary implication of the defendant's case on this point that Thamraayya in the inam deed stood not only for himself, but for his two brothers Thimmayya and Veerayya. For reasons which I shall give presently I do not consider it necessary to go into the very complicated question of who the inamdar under Ex. P really was. Taking the principal events which have happened in the order of chronology, in 1895 under Ex. 1, Veerayya, son of Venkataohalam, gifted to M. Venkayya, son of A.ppayya the property which he says therein he got on partition from "Thimmayya's daughter-in-law." This document being long antecedent to any dispute in the case, although it is not at all clear bow on the defendants case Veerayya could get in partition from this person, nevertheless shows that he gifted all that he got in partition. Under it he gifted the following: