GURAZADA VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. GURAZADA AUDINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both parties to this suit are agnatic kinsmen of one Sarabharaju and they claim against each other the properties which his widow enjoyed till her death in 1926. A genealogical table is appended to the plaint, showing the relationship of the various parties. It is not necessary to refer to it here in more detail then to say that the plaintiff is the father's brother's grandson of Sarabharaju and that the defendants are the brother's great grandsons of Sarabharaju. The only other portion of the pedigree to be borne in mind in dealing with the evidence, is that Sarabharaju had two step-brothers Lakshimikantham and Naghabushanam, that Nagabhushanam left only a widow surviving him and that Lakshmikantham had a son Papahari, who pre-deceased him leaving a son Naghabhushanam, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff claimed that the properties in the possession of the widow were held by her as a widow's estate, she having succeeded to the same on Sarabharaju's death somewhere between 1860 and 1865. The defendants on the other hand contended that Sarabharaju and Nagabhushanam (their father) were undivided, that Nagabushanam succeeded to all the family properties on Sarabharaju's death but put Sarabharaju's widow Lakshmayamma in possession of certain properties for the purpose of her maintenance. Alternatively, the defendants contended that even if the properties enjoyed by the widow should be found to have been held by her for a widow's estate, they were the preferable heirs as being descended from a nearer line.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge held in favour of the plaintiff on both the points and gave him a decree as regards some of the items claimed and disallowed his claim in respect of certain items on the ground that they have not been shown to have ever been in the possession of the widow.

(3.) The plaintiff has preferred a memorandum of objections in respect of the items disallowed to him; but the memo, of objections can hardly be seriously pressed, because there Is very little evidence to show that the widow was in possession of those items. The memorandum of objections, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.