Judgement

Consolidated Appeals (Nos. 55 and 56 of 1933) from a decree of the High Court (September 27, 1927) setting aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam (November 9, 1922).

The main question in these appeals was whether the plaintiffs [respondents in appeal No. 55, and appellants in appeal No. 56] had any reversionary rights in the suit properties, and that depended on whether or not their maternal grandfather was joint in estate with the ancestors of the contesting defendants.

Law. Rep. 63 Ind. App. 397 ( 1935- 1936) Alluri Venkatapathi Raju V. Dantuluri Venkatanarasimha Raju 139

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit.

An appeal to the High Court (Ramesam and Cornish JJ.) was allowed, and the plaintiffs were granted a declaration that, on the death of their mother, they would be entitled to succeed to a portion of the estate claimed by them.

1936. May 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14. Dunne K.C. and Subba Row for appellants in appeal No. 55, and respondents 2-5 in appeal No. 56.

De Gruyther K.C. and Abdul Majid for respondents 1 and 2 in appeal No. 55, and appellants (plaintiffs) in appeal No. 56.

The following authorities were referred to Hurrinath Chatterji v. Mohunt Mothoor Mohun Goswami (( 1893) L. R. 20 I. A. 183.); Ramsumran Prasad v. Shyam Kumari (( 1922) L. R. 49 I. A. 342.); Palani Ammal v. Muthu-venkatacharla Moniagar (( 1924) L. R. 52 I. A. 83.); Vaithialinga Mudaliar v. Srirangath Anni (( 1925) I. R. 52 I. A. 322.); Katama Natchiar v. Rajah of Shivagunga (( 1863) 9 Moo. I. A. 539.); Mata Prasad v. Nageshar Sahai (( 1925) L. R. 52 I. A. 398.); Bal Krishna v. Ram Krishna (( 1931) L. R. 58 I. A. 220.); Amrit Narayan Singh v. Gay a Singh (( 1917) L. R. 45 I. A. 35.); Chaudhri Risal Singh v. Balwant Singh (( 1918) L. R. 45 I. A. 168.); Appovier v. Rama Subba Aiyan (( 1866) 11 Moo. I. A. 75.); Balkishen Das v. Ram Narain Sahu (( 1903) L. R. 30 I. A. 139.); Balabux Ladhuram v. Rukhmabai (( 1903) L. R. 30 I. A. 130.); Jatti v. Banwari Lal (( 1923) L. R. 5o

I. A. 192.); Haridas Narayandas v. Devkuvarbai (( 1926) I. L. R. 50 B. 443.); Rampershad Tewarry

v. Sheochurn Doss (( 1866) 10 Moo. I. A. 490.); Sudarsanam Maistri v. Narasimhulu Maistri (( 1901)

I. L. R. 25 M. 149.); joy Narain Giri v. Girish Chunder Myti (( 1878) L. R. 5 I. A. 228.); Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj (( 1916) L. R. 43 I. A. 151.); Rewa Prasad Sukal v. Deo Dutt ram Sukal (( 1899)

L. R. 27 I. A. 39.); Hook v. Administrator-General of Bengal (( 1921) L. R. 48 I. A. 187.); and Kalipada De v. Dwijapada Das. (( 1929) L. R. 57 I. A. 24.)

July 17. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Sir Shadi Lal. These are two consolidated appeals from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, by which that Court set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam dismissing the plaintiffs suit, and granted a declaration that the plaintiffs would be entitled to succeed, on the death of their mother, to a portion of the estate claimed by them. The principal question, on which elaborate arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, is whether the plaintiffs maternal grandfather was, or was not, joint in estate with the ancestors of the contesting defendants.

The relationship of the persons concerned is indicated in the following pedigree—

Alluri Venkataraju

|

| | | |

Pattabhiramaraju Krishnamraju Akkiraju Ramaraju

|

|

Buchi = Venkatraghvaraju = Venkata

Venkayya Narasayya

|

|

Chandrayya

|

Law. Rep. 63 Ind. App. 397 ( 1935- 1936) Alluri Venkatapathi Raju V. Dantuluri Venkatanarasimha Raju 140

||

Venkata Satyanarayanaraju

Narasimmaraju (Plaintiff No. 2)

(Plaintiff No. 1)

The common ancestor of the parties, Alluri Venkataraju, and his four sons constituted a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara school of the Hindu law. They originally resided in Gudimellanka in the Godaveri District of the Madras Presidency, but in or about 1839 the eldest son, Pattabhira