MARRI RAMANNA Vs. GHATTAMANENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set up by the plaintiff in his plaint is a right to exclusive possession of the property leased to him by Kottappa's widow, viz., one half of the family property.

(2.) The findings are that the 1 defendant was not divided from his family, and consequently, as against him, the plaintiff was, of course, not entitled to exclusive possession of any portion of the family property.

(3.) On appeal to us this is conceded, but it is now contended that the first defendant being merely entitled to joint possession with the plaintiff of the family property, he was not entitled to oust the plaintiff, and it was argued that the plaintiff was entitled to damages on the footing that as regards one-third of the family property, the ousting of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant was wrongful.