RAJAH OF BOBBILI Vs. INUGANTI CHINA SITARASAMI GARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the year 1848 the then Rajah of Bobbili, Sri Rajah Sveta Chalapati Ranga Rao Bahadur Gam, who was owner of the estate of Chidikada Jagannadhapuram. situated within the zamindari of Magdole, made a grant of it to his cousin, Sri Inuganti Rajagopala Rayanin Garu, the husband of his sister Sri Gopayyammi Gam. The estate was registered in the name of the donee, who died upon April 4, 1656, survived by his widow Gopayyammi, and by their daughter Lakshmi Chellayyammi Garu, who was at that time a minor, eight years of age.

(2.) UPON the death of Sri Inuganti Rajagopala Rayanin Garu the estate was, with the consent of his widow Gopayyammi, retransferred into the name of the original donor, upon the footing that the interest conferred upon Inuganti by the grant of 1848 was for his lifetime. The original donor, Sri Rajah Sveta Chalapati Ranga Rao Bahadur Garu, on February 19, 1862, made a second grant of the estate, in terms absolute and unqualified, to Sri Inuganti Sitaramasvami Garu, the son of one of his sisters, who was registered as owner and continued to possess the estate until his death, without leaving issue, in September, 1873. His widow, the original respondent, Sri Inuganti Bhavayyammi Garu, thereupon entered into and continued to enjoy possession of the estate under the management of the Court of Wards. She died during the dependence of this appeal, and her representative, Inuganti China Sitarasami Garu has been substituted as respondent.

(3.) THE present suit was brought by the appellant in order to recover possession from the original respondent of the estate of Chidika Jagannadhapuram in December, 1890, his main ground of action being that, by the terms of the first grant of 1848, Sri Inuganti Rajagopala Rayanin Garu became absolute owner of the estate, and that his interest was not restricted to his lifetime. The appellant maintained that, by Hindu law, on the death of Rajagopala, his widow Gopayyammi became entitled to a life estate, that on her decease their daughter Lakshmi became entitled to enjoy the estate in question during her life, and that her right of succession had now devolved upon the appellant under an arrangement with Lakshmi.