PENUMASTA SUBBARAJU Vs. INDUKURI NARAYANARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant's father Appalaraju was taken into the family of his father-in-law and he lived with him as a member of the family. Appalaraju and his three brothers-in-law effected a division of the family properties and Appalaraju was given one-fourth share in them. In 1911 defendants x and 2 herein instituted a suit against the appellant for the recovery of 9 acres of land on the ground that the granting of a share of the joint family property by their father was not binding upon them as Appalaraju was not a member of the joint family. To that suit the other members of the family were parties. The suit was compromised and a razinama decree was passed on 22nd January, 1912. According to the terms of the razinama, the plaintiff should adopt Thimmaraju, the second son of the plaintiff (1 plaintiff in the previous suit) within two months from the date of the razi and if he did so he should enjoy the entire property which fell to his Father Appalaraju's share and if he should fail to take the boy in adoption he should retain only one-half of the 27 and odd acres and the other half should go to the plaintiffs. The appellant failed to take the boy in adoption and he now sues for the recovery of half of the 27 and odd acres on the ground that the razinama is not binding on him as it was brought about by fraud. The question of fraud is found against and the only point that is now urged for setting aside the razinama is that it is opposed to public policy and therefore the appellant is entitled to get back the 14 acres of which he was dispossessed in execution of the razinama decree. Madhavan Nair, J., held that the ment whereby third persons who are not parties to the transaction try to acquire monetary benefit by promoting it.

(2.) Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent presented against the judgment of the Hon ble Mr. Justice Madhavan Nair in S.A. No. 1387 of 1921 preferred to the High Court against the decree of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ellore in A.S. No. 21 of 1921 (A.S. No. 351 of 1920 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore) preferred against the decree of the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Tanuku in O.S. No. 189 of 1912. razinama was a bona fide family settlement and it could not be impeached by the appellant.

(3.) The main contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that the term as regards taking the boy in adoption is opposed to public policy as no one can be compelled to make an adoption and any consideration paid for taking a boy in adoption is illegal and opposed to the Hindu Law. The admitted facts are, the appellant's father Appalaraju was the son-in-law of Subbaraju. He belonged to a different family and on his marrying the daughter of Subbaraju he was asked to live in the family and look alter the cultivation. It is immaterial to consider now whether Appalaraju brought the properties of his own family and made them part of his joint family property. After the death of Subbaraju the three sons effected a division of the family property and gave Appalaraju a fourth share. The grandsons by one of the three sons of Subbaraju attacked the arrangement on the ground that their father had no right to give away a portion of the family property to a stranger of the family, and the other members of the family supported the contention of the plaintiffs. In order to bring about peace in the family and in order to prevent further litigation and loss, arbitrators settled the disputes between the parties in a way which was considered satisfactory to all of them.