VENKATA NARASIMHA APPA ROW; RANGAYYA APPA ROW; SRI RAJAH RANGAYYA APPA ROW BAHADUR ZAMINDAR; PARTHASARADHI APPA ROW SAVAI ASWA ROWBAHADUR ZAMINDAR Vs. RANGAYYA APPA ROW; VENKATANARASIMHA APPA ROW BAHADUR; PARTHASARADHI APPA ROW; RANGAYYA APPA ROW BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, and the suit out of which they arise, relate to the right to the permanently settled estates of Nidadavole and Medur in the Kistna and Godavari Districts.

(2.) The following genealogical tree shows the relationship of the several members of the family.

(3.) The three brothers, Venkatanarasimha (2), Ramachendra (3), and Narasimha (4) were divided. The last admitted male owner of Nidadavole estate was Narayya Appa Row (5) who died in 1864, leaving behind him as his only heirs two widows, Papamma Row and Chinnamma Row. These widows put forward a will by their deceased husband, executed on the day before his death, which provided for the equal division of his estate between them, and authorized them to adopt a son to him. They continued in joint possession and enjoyment of the estate until the death of Chinnamma Row in 1881 or 1883, after which Papamma Row alone enjoyed the estate. In 1888 Venkataramayya (15), who was the sole owner of the Medur estate, died and the Court of Wards then took possession of the estate on be- half of Yenkataramayya's only son, Narayya (17) who was then a child. In 1890 Papamma Row adopted this Narayya who was then sole owner of the Medur estate. The minor, Narayya, died unmarried in August 1895, his sole heir being his adoptive mother Papamma Row. It was immediately after this that the first of the suits now before us, viz., O.S. No. 35 of 1895, was filed before the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam by Venkayamma, the natural mother of the minor Narayya against Papamma Row and the Court of Wards. In this suit she sought to recover possession of the Medur estate on the ground that the adoption of Narayya by Papamma Row was invalid for various reasons, and that, even if it was not invalid, Narayya, by being adopted, was divested of all interest in the Medur estate. While this suit was pending Venkayamma died, but the suit was continued by Rangayya (11) and Venkatanarasimha (12) as the reversionary heirs of her late husband, Venkataramayya (15), who was also their own divided brother. In that suit the Subordinate Judge held that the will of Narayya (5 under the authority of which Papamma Row made the adoption, was genuine, and that the adoption of the minor Narayya (17) was not invalid for any reason, and also that it did not operate to divest Narayya (17) of the estate of Medur, which therefore passed on his death to Papamma Row, as his adoptive mother. He (the Subordinate Judge) therefore dismissed the suit on the 2 December, 1899. It is against this decree that Venkatanarasimha (12) and Rangayya (11) have respectively filed the present Appeals Nos. 122 & 123 of 1900. Three days after that decree was passed, i.e., on the 5 December 1899, Papamma Row died, and on the 14 of the same month the second of the suits now before us, viz., O.S. No. 44 of 1899, was launched before the District Judge by Parthasarathi, (16). It will be seen by a reference to the genealogical tree that this Parthasarathi (16) and Rangayya (11) and Venkatanarasimha (12) are all equally nearly related to Narayya (5), the late husband of Papamma Row, and they were, in fact, his only.reversionary heirs when Papamma Row died. They were also the only reversionary heirs of the minor Narayya (17) considered as the adopted son of Narayya (5) and of Papamma Row, and they were all equally nearly related to him. Parthasarathi in his suit (O.S. No. 44) therefore claimed, as a reversioner, to be entitled to a one-third share in the estates of Nidadavole and Medur, Rangayya and Venkatanarasimha being also each entitled to a one- third share, and he sued to recover his share from them as they had taken possession of the estates on Papamma Row's death. It will further be seen by reference to the genealogical tree that the nearest reversioners of the minor Narayya (17), considered as a member of his natural family, were his father's brothers, Rangayya (11) and Venkatanarasimha (12) and that Parthasarathi (16) was only a distant reversioner. If, therefore, the adoption of the minor Narayya (17) by Papamma Row was invalid, or if, that adoption operated in law to divest the minor of the Medur estate, both of which contentions, however, Parthasarathi (16) denied, then Parthasarathi could have no right as a reversioner to a share in that estate. He, therefore, prayed that if either of those contentions were established, he might be decreed his one-third share in Nidadavole alone.