Seri Ram Reddy And Others v. Chandramma And Others

1. This is a second appeal and the Plaintiffs are the appellants before us. The following genealogical tables would show the relationship of the parties to the suit:

2. The present dispute relates to the properties which were originally held by Venkat Reddy shown in Geneological Table No. 2. After the death of Venkat Reddy the patta of the lands was made in the name of Yelamma, his wife, and later in the name of Nagamma. Finally Anant Reddy, the son of Nagamma and the daughter's son of Venkat Reddy was made the pattedar of these lands with Yedla Rama Reddy, his other grandson as the ‘Shikmidar.’ Anant Reddy and Yedla Rama Reddy succeeded to the properties of their maternal grandfather, Venkat Reddy. Anant Reddy died in 1346 Fasli and Yedla Rama Reddy in 1347 Fasli.

3. These are the facts prior to the date of the suit.

4. The present suit was brought by Seri Rama Reddy and Mal Reddy the sons of Ashi Reddy by Gouramma, and Buchi Reddy the son of Sai Reddy, the junior, alleging that they were all members of a Hindu joint family and that Anant Reddy and Yedla Rama Reddy also were living with them as members of a point family and that the said Anant Reddy and Yedla Rama Reddy brought into the hotch potch the properties that they got from their maternal grandfather and all of them enjoyed the same as part of the joint family property. The Plaintiffs alleged that there was an agreement between the plaintiffs on the one hand and Anant Reddy and Yedla Rama Reddy on the other that the property that came to the latter from their grandfather should be treated as joint family property and enjoyed by them all. The Plaintiffs further stated that after the death of Yedla Rama Reddy, Chandramma, Defendant No. 1, the widow of Yedla Rama Reddy, dispossessed the plaintiffs of their possession of the suit properties, viz. (the properties brought into hotch potch by the defendant No. 1's husband and her step brother.) They therefore prayed that a decree be passed for possession of the suit properties and for payment of the mesne profits for the period she happened to be in possession thereof. In this suit another person, who was alleged to be an illatom adopted son of Chandramma the defendant No. 1, was also impleaded as a co-defendant inasmuch as the “allegation of Chandramma was that she took the defendant No. 2 as illatom adopted son.

5. Defendants contended that the suit properties were the separate properties of Yedla Rama Reddy and therefore the plaintiffs had no right to the properties. They averred that he was a divided member of the joint family. On these pleadings the necessary issues were framed. Both the Courts came to the conclusion on the evidence led by the parties that the family of Yedla Rama Reddy, and the Plaintiffs was Joint; but they held that the agreement said to have been arrived at between the parties that the properties got by Yedla Rama Reddy and Anant Reddy from their maternal grandfather was to be treated as joint family property, was not proved. In the result both the Courts dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit. The Plaintiffs have now come in appeal to the High Court.

6. The nature of the property got by a person from his maternal grandfather, prior to the decision of the Privy Council in the case of ‘Muhamad Hussain v. Kishva Nand’, 64 Ind App 250 was regarded as ancestral property and if there were two grandsons then on the death of one of them the property survived to the other, under the conception that they took the property as joint tenants. But in the above case the Privy Council held that it did not partake of the nature of an ancestral property and therefore the grandsons who got properties from their maternal grandfather would take the properties as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. The position of law being such we would have to determine the rights of the plaintiffs. Anant Reddy and Yedla Rama Reddy succeeded to the properties of Venkat Reddy as grandsons, they took the properties as tenants in common.

7. The question for consideration is whether the Plaintiffs have been successful in establishing that there was an agreement between the parties by which it was settled that the suit properties should be treated as joint family properties and enjoyed as such. It is essential that a party who asserts that a certain property which was the separate property of another was thrown into the common stock, should establish that the said person unequivocally declared that his separate property might be mixed and blended with the joint family property. This fact must be established by evidence. The witnesses who have been examined in this regard are Plaintiff No. 1 himself, P.W 4 Gourappa and P.W 6 Ashiga. (After referring to the evidence the judgment proceeds thus:—) There is no evidence in rebuttal to show that these lands were enjoyed separately. On the whole we are not inclined to agree with the Lower Courts in their finding that the alleged agreement of throwing the suit properties also into the common stock and their having been enjoyed jointly, subsequently is not proved by the evidence led by the plaintiffs.

8. Having found that the agreement alleged by the plaintiffs is proved it would be necessary to consider what relief the plaintiffs would be entitled because we are of opinion that the plaintiffs cannot be non-suited.

9. The defendant No. 2 in this case alleged that he was the ilia tom son-in-law of Yedla Rama Reddy andan issue was raised in this regard, but we find that both the Courts have not alluded to this, on the ground evidently that it was unnecessary to go into the matter as the plaintiffs' suit was being dismissed. We are also of the same opinion that it would be unnecessary to go into the question of the illatom adoption of defendant No. 2.

10. The judgment of the lower Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

11. Appeal allowed.