AUDI RAJU PYRAPPA Vs. AUDI RAJU SYMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has arisen for determination in this second appeal is whether a person, who belongs to a family having an hereditary interest in a Karnam s Inam and becomes divided in status from the holder of the office for the time being, can, when that Inam is subsequently enfranchised by the Government, claim a share in the lands that formed the emoluments of the office of Karnam.

(2.) In other words, when an Inam is enfranchised from the condition of service, does it become partible among all persons having an hereditary interest in the office through descent from the original grantee or only among those who belong to the joint family of the holder of the office at the time of enfranchisement?

(3.) The respondent s Pleader relies upon an observation of Bashyam Aiyangar, J., at page 354 in Gunnaiyan v. Kamakchi Ayyar 26 M. 339 "that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the family of the parties were the holders of the hereditary office up to the date of the enfranchisement of the Inam." The "family" referred to in that sentence was the family of the parties to an unreported case Second Appeal No. 222 of 1896. All the parties to Gunnaigan v. Kamakchi Ayyar 26 M. 339- were members of an undivided family. Therefore, any observations that occur in that judgment must be understood as having no express reference to the claims of any members who had become separated from the family of the holder of the office at any date before enfranchisement.