MUDALA SITHANNA Vs. KUPPILI LAKSHMINARASIMHULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relationship between the plaintiff and one Appalanarasamma who is the all-important character in this story is shown in the geneological table herewith annexed. It will be seen that one Radhakrishnamma married one Venkamma and that they had a daughter Appalanarasamma who died on the 9ih February, 1932. The plaintiff is the son of a sister of Radhakrishnamma, namely, Kuppili Peda Ragha-vamma and he claims the property, the subject of this suit, as a reversioner to the estate of Radhakrishnamma. There are before us four defendants-appellants. In A.S. No. 10 of 1937 defendants 2, 3 and 7 are the appellants and are represented by Mr. P. Somasundaram. The first defendant appeals separately in A.S. No. 205 of 1937 arfd is represented by Mr. Govinda-rajachari. The property concerned is as follows: The defendants claim that they are entitled to the suit property; defendant 2 as alienee of portions of item 1 in the plaint which he purchased from the first defendant and Appalanarasamma; the third defendant as alienee also of other portions of item 1 from the same source. The seventh defendant claims under a sale by Appalanarasamma to the sixth defendant and from the sixth defendant to him of item 4 of Schedule A. The appeal concerns only the items to which 1 have alluded. The answer to this claim was twofold (1) that the lands in sub-itemsvl to 4 of item 1 which had been covered by a permanent lease given by Appalanarasamma to the first defendant were enfranchised mirasi service inam lands and (2) that

(2.) Appalanarasamma was entitled to deal with them as absolute owner as they had been enfranchised in her favour while she was the holder of the office of karnam in the village of Lakshmipuram. The legal position relating to the ownership of inam lands attached to the office of karnam and enfranchised in his or her favour has been well settled, by the Judicial Committee and in this High Court. It was decided by the Judicial Committee in Venkata Jagannadha V/s. Veerabhadrayya (1921) 41 M.L.J. 1 : L.R. 48 I.A. 244 : I.L.R. 44 Mad. 643 (P.C.) that the karnam of a village in Madras occupies his office not by hereditary or family right but as a personal appointee, although the appointment is primarily made of a suitable person who is a member of a particular family and that where karnam service lands have been enfranchised, a quit rent being imposed in lieu of the service, and an inam title deed is granted confirming the lands to the holder of the office, his representatives and assigns, the lands are his separate property and are not subject to any claim to partition by other members of the family. The result of that is that when lands of this description are alienated by a karnam, the alienee gets a good title. That principle has been applied to the case of women representatives who occupy the position of karnam in Palaniyandi V/s. Velayudam Pillai and Abdnkuri Venkataramadoss V/s. Pachigolla Gavarraju . It is unnecessary to go into this position at any length because there is no contention about the legal position and there is very little contention now about the one point which we for some time had discussed before us. It was naturally of the utmost importance to the defendants in this case, resting as they did their title on the position of Appalanarasamma as the karnam of this village, to establish that she was actually in that position and that the enfranchisement was in, her favour. There were in the possession of the defendants at the earliest stage of this case certain documents which went a long way towards establishing this position. Those documents arose under the following circumstances. There had been litigation long ago between Appalanarasamma and one Koduru Venkanna in O.S. No. 388 of 1909 in the District Munsif's Court of Parvathipur. It appeared that Koduru Venkanna was claiming that he was entitled to the mirasi inam lands of Lakshmipuram village jointly with Appalanarasamma. x\ppala-narasarama's contention which it was necessary for her to vindicate by a suit was that Venkanna was no more than her r agent or representative to carry out the duties of karnam, she being a woman, but that she was the sole karnam and had the sole right to these lands. So it will be seen that the most important question to be considered in that case was what was the legal position of Appalanarasamma in relation to the karnamship. The matter was heard by the District Munsif and his judgment which is now marked as Ex. 15 was produced to the learned Judge. It is a long judgment and there was a decree finally which is marked as Ex. 14. It awarded Appalanarasamma the wet lands claimed but refused a decree for the dry lands. Against that decree there was an appeal to the District Judge whose judgment is marked as Ex. 17. It concluded in paragraph 12 with the following words: I am therefore of opinion that plaintiff is entitled to have all the suit lands exclusively enfranchised in her name and the entry of defendant's name in the title deed as a joint owner is fraudulent and illegal.

(3.) So Appalanarasamma succeeded in her claim to the dry lands also. The District Judge had before that held in paragraph 8 that the plaintiff was the holder of the office at the time of the enfranchisement and not defendant but that defendant was only a deputy doing duties of the office on behalf of plaintiff. The matter in second appeal in this High Court was peremptorily rejected and in the result the learned District Judge's judgment was affirmed. Therefore the position of Appalanarasamma had been a matter of the fullest investigation before a Court of law and it seems to me that under Section 13 of the Evidence Act these proceedings on the question of the existence of her right in this office and property would have been and a very relevant as being transactions by which the right was recognised. Most unfortunately, in the lower Court copies of these documents according to the learned Judge were not produced until the hearing of the suit. He rejected them because, as is obvious^ their receipt in evidence was opposed by the plaintiff. The learned Judge said: These documents are for the first time produced into Court only to-day and the explanation for their non-production previously is not satisfactory. They were not also mentioned in any list filed with the written statement as documents on which defendants wanted to rely.