JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal against respondents 1 to 5 arising out of the judgment and decree of the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Eluru. The suit was for ejectment of the respondents from the A and B scheduled properties and to put the appellant in possession of the same, to direct the 1st respondent to pay Rs. 4253-14-9 towards mesne profits and interest on the A scheduled properties and further to direct respondents 2 to 5 to nay the appellant Rs. 163-2-1 as mesne profits and interest on the B schedule proper-ties and further to direct payment of interest on the said amounts and costs of the suit. The following genealogical table will help in the understanding of the contentions raised in this appeal. Penumarti Panasayyafenumarti (died in 1891)Narayanamurthi=papayl (died 1940) (died in 1885)= Bapanammaadopted son Venkanna (died 1943 ). = Rattamma (died 1907)IVeera Pauasa Ramanna (adopted on 9-6-1948) (Plaintiff-appellant)It will be seen from the above genealogy that Panasayya and Narayanamurthi were brothers and it is admitted that they formed a Hindu joint family owning and enjoying A and B scheduled properties along with other properties. The allegations of the appellant were that Narayanamurthi died undivided with his brother; that after his death Panasayya gave the A and B scheduled properties to Bapanamma, widow of Narayanamurthi, for maintenance for life to be reverted after her death to Panasayya Or to his legal representative if he should predecease her; that Panasayya died in 1891 and Bapanamma died in 1943; that Venkanna was adopted by Panasayya during his life-time which fact was stated in his registered will dated 18-3-1891 by which he appointed his wife Papayi as guardian of the said adopted son, that Venkanna became entitled along with Panasayya to the joint family properties, that after the death of Panasayya, Papayi managed the properties of the adopted son during her life-time and died in 1940, that Venkanna died issueless leaving his widow Rattamma, that Rattamma adopted the appellant on 9-6-1948 with the consent of one of her husbands nearest reversioners, Penurnarti Kamanna, the other nearest reversioner Penumarti Ramanna having improperly and illegally refusing his consent and that on the death of Bapanamma in 1943, Rattamma land the plaintiff-appellant had become entitled to the plaint A and B scheduled properties with a right to recover possession of the same with mesne profits from persons who were in possession of the said properties. It is further alleged that Bapanamma sold the A scheduled properties to Panumarti Sattiraju and his wife, the parents of 1st respondent under a sale deed dated 14-3-1923 alleging that the was entitled to the same as her own properties, that Sattiraju and his wife having died, the 1st respondent is in possession of the same, that further on the same date 14-3-1923, the said Bapanamma sold the B schedule properties to one Nuni Ammanna; that on Amrnannas death his son Sarvarayudu sold the properties Somanchi Lakshminarayana who subsequently sold them to Kanipc Naganna and Mahalakshmi, both of whom sold said property to Kanipe Anjaneyulu, and that on the death of Anjaneyulu the property is in possession of his widow the 2nd respondent and her three sons respondents 3 to 5. The appellant averred that the recitals in the sale deeds by Bapanamma that the properties were her own properties were not true; that Panasayya and his representatives have a vested right in the same and were entitled to them subject to the lite interest of Bapanamma and that the two sale deeds do not bind him and consequently he is entitled to recover the properties with profits and costs. The appellant further denied the allegations made by the 1st respondent, jn reply to the notice issued by the appellants lawyer, that Narayanamurty and Panassayya were divided brothers and on their division the A schedule properties fell to the share of Narayanamurty and on his death they devolve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document