MARIVADA VEERANNA, MINOR, BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, MAHALAKSHMI Vs. VYTLA SEETANNA, LATE A MINOR, BY MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, RAMANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals against the decree in O.S. No. 63 of 1921 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court of Cocanada, by which the plaintiff as reversioncr has been given a decree for recovery of certain properties belonging originally to one Tiruppayya, the last male owner. The facts of the case are somewhat complicated and are as follows: Tiruppayya was the son of one Dorayya who died a very long time ago, the exact date being unknown. Dorayya had a sister, Venkamma, who was widowed at an early age and went to live with her brother. Subsequently Ammanna, son of another sister, was taken in by Venkamma and was afterwards described as her foster-son. This Ammanna married Dorayya's daughter, Ademma, and lived in his father-in-law's house. Venkamma was apparently managing the family affairs while Tiruppayya was young, and Ammanna was also assisting in the cultivation of lands, etc. After Tiruppayya's death in 1880, there was a mediation between Tiruppayya's widow, Venkata-ramanamma, and Ammanna, and the award of the mediators, Exhibit I, decided that Venkataramanamma and Ammanna should take the moveable and immoveable properties of the family in equal shares. In 1888, Venkataramanamma executed a document Exhibit VIII (a) in favour of Ammanna by which she gave up to him a half of the family properties. On the same day she executed another document, Exhibit VIII, in favour of her daughter Nagayya whereby she transferred the other half of the family properties to her daughter, reserving for herself 6 acres 42 cents of land which should be "under her so long as she lived." Nagayya died about 1904. After her death the properties transferred to her seem to have been enjoyed by her minor daughter, her husband Munnayya and Venkataramanamma. On Munnayya's death he left a will bequeathing some of these properties to a relation and there was a Suit between that legatee and Venkataramanamma and Papamma, Munnayya's widow, which was compromised, and in accordance with the compromise the lands were divided between the parties. Venkataramanamma died in August, 1921, and this suit was filed in the following October by the plaintiff as the next reversioner of Tiruppayya.

(2.) The questions for consideration are: (1) Whether the settlement of 1880 was valid and binding on the estate. (2) Whether the gift to Nagayya in 1888 was a surrender of the widow's interest in the estate. (3) Who succeeded to the property on the death of Nagayya? and (4) Whether the compromise entered into during the pendency . of this suit between the plaintiff and defendants J, 2 and 3 is binding on the defendants,

(3.) On the first point it has to be determined whether the compromise of 1880 was in settlement of bona fide family disputes or whether it was a mere alienation by the widow which was not binding on the estate. The case of the first defendant, who is the son of Ammanna, is that his father was the illatom son-in-law of Dorayya and as such was entitled to a share in the family property and that the compromise was arranged in settlement of his claim. The Subordinate Judge has found that Ammanna was not the illatom son-in-law of Dorayya and certainly the evidence adduced to prove the illatom transaction is inadequate. This is not surprising considering the very long time that has elapsed since those events took place. It is certainly true that Ammanna married Dorayya's daughter and came to live in his father-in-law's house. Whether it was before or after the death of his father-in-law is not certain as the evidence on the point is very conflicting. In any event, he seems to have been treated as one of the family, for he gave up his rights in his natural family and looked after the affairs of Dorayya's family helping his aunt and foster-mother Venkamma. It has also been shown by the plaintiff's own witnesses that Dorayya became divided from his brothers and that his estate was considerably augmented by the exertions and care of Venkamma. It is not clear whether she applied any of her own money towards these acquisitions or whether it was merely her care and attention that increased the family properties. On this point it is impossible to secure any definite evidence after the lapse of at least 60 years. We have these facts which support the theory that it was intended to introduce Ammanna into the family as the illatom son-in-law. We also have the fact that Venkamma was in possession and urged her claim to some of the family properties and her claim must be deemed to be the claim of Ammanna, for it was as her foster-son that Ammanna put forward his claim before the mediators. The mediation was quite open and in settlement of disputes, between the parties as, admitted by the plaintiff's own witnesses. It took place more than 40 years before the suit was filed and has not been questioned till now, when it is very difficult to ascertain accurately details of the dispute and the grounds on which Ammanna put forward his claim. In view of the circumstances which we do know, and of the fact that the transaction has been unquestioned for over 40 years, I think it must be held that Ammanna had a bona fide claim and this, settlement, therefore, was a settlement of bona fide family disputes and would, therefore, be binding on the estate which was represented by the widow in that dispute.