BAPATLA VENKATA ROW Vs. BAPATLA VENKOBA ROW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of the suit for partition by the Subordinate Judge. The suit relates to a family of which the common ancestor, as is now not disputed, was Kanchiraju. He was great-grand father of the plaintiff and great-great-grandfather of Defendant 1. At the trial it was denied by Defendant 1, or rather by Defendant 2, as Defendant 1, his father, died a few days after the suit was instituted, that the plaintiff and his two brothers, Defendants 5 and 6, belonged to the family at all. The plaintiff's case is that his father, Suryanarayana, was adopted by Krishnayya I, the son of Kanchiraju I. The Subordinate Judge has found in favour of the adoption, and that is not now disputed before us.

(2.) It is denied in Defendant 1's written statement that the property concerned is joint family property at all, and it is alleged that it was acquired by Defendant 1's grandfather Kanchiraju II. But it appears from Ex. A, a statement by Defendant 1's father, Venkayya, at an Inam enquiry in 1864, that the family was joint at that time. If that statement is read with the genealogy attached to it, I do not think it is possible to accept Mr. Venkataramana Rao's contention for Defendant 2, in regard to it that it does not show that the family was joint at that time and had as its joint family property the thope to which the statement relates. So I think we must start with the fact that this was a joint family in 1864. It is suggested for Defendant 2, that Ex. II an extract from the Inam Register in 1869, shows that at least by that time the family had become divided. But, when Ex. II is examined, it is seen that it does not refer to the same property as that to which Ex. A, relates but that it refers to a separate Inam granted to Defendant 1's great-grandfather, Venkayya, the brother of Krisnayya I. The fact that that branch of the family had a separate inam does not show that the whole family was not joint. In 1904 we find that Defendant 1 made a statement to the Tahsildar, Ex. C (2), in regard to the house which stands upon the site in Bapatla town with which this suit is concerned. He then said that the roof of that house had been on it for 70 or 80 years and that the site had been in the enjoyment of his forefathers from time immemorial, ever since the village came into existence. The 70 or 80 years which he mentions it will be seen would go much further back than the date of Ex. A. Now this family has as its family name "Bapatla", which indicates that their family house was in Bapatla. There is no evidence whatever that there is any other house in Bapatla which was ever occupied by them as their family house. When the existence of the family as a joint family in 1864 is taken with Defendant 1's statement about the house in 1904. I think the only reasonable inference is that the house with which we are concerned was the family house of the joint family. It has been suggested that the house mentioned in Ex. C. (2) has not been identified by clear evidence with the house with which we are concerned. But it does not appear that the identity of the house was ever disputed before the Subordinate Judge.

(3.) There is no definite evidence that this joint family was divided at any particular time, and that would be very curious if there had been a definite partition because after all 1864 is not so very long ago. But it does not follow that because the house and its site were joint family property, the plaintiff has still a right to ask for a share in them. It is contended as part of Defendant 2's case that there is enough to show that there has been such an ouster of the plaintiff's branch as precludes him from recovering any share in the property now. The site is one in the Bazar Steet of Bapatla. It is admittedly very valuable now and must have been valuable for many years. On this site it appears that there were originally two houses and a thatched shed.